Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Motion made,
That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How may I object, Sir, to this matter being taken at this point?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has objected. Objection taken.

Third Reading deferred till this day at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Doctors' Pay

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will obtain from the National Board for Prices and Incomes and publish its draft report on the reference to it of doctors' pay.

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): No, Sir. The reference on doctors' and dentists' pay was withdrawn on 29th June, before the National Board for Prices and Incomes made its report. It would not be appropriate to publish drafts or working papers.

Mr. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is acting with a grave degree of irresponsibility in failing to publish an independent scrutiny into a 30 per cent. pay claim while at the same time saying that people with lesser pay claims and much lesser earnings are guilty of participating in a wages explosion? Will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Carr: No, Sir, I will not reconsider it, and I am not acting in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. We regard it as inappropriate that the findings of one review body should be referred to another. The National Board for Prices and Incomes had not completed its report. No draft or provisional reports have ever been published before, nor would it be proper to do so.

Mrs. Castle: But is it not a fact that this reference was withdrawn because the outline of the report was already clear and it was known that it would be critical of the Kindersley Report? How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to persuade unions to show restraint in wage claims when the very first act of the present Government is to cover up for this highly inflationary award?

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady must know that what she said is not our view. It may be her view. Our view is that we shall not get responsibility in any level


of industrial relations or pay negotiations until bodies which are given responsibility for coming to settlements are allowed to have their settlements stand. That is the basis for order in collective bargaining.

Price Increases

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many notifications under the Prices and Incomes Act in respect of price increases have been made to his Department since 18th June, 1970; and what action he has taken on them.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Paul Bryan): Such notifications are not made to my Department. Since 18th June, 60 notifications have been received by Departments responsible for particular commodities and services under the voluntary arrangements for the early warning of price increases.

Mr. Fraser: Will that voluntary notification machinery be continued in order to keep a watch on prices, and will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, wherever there is a price rise which gives cause for concern, he will, jointly with other Ministers, refer it for public scrutiny to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Bryan: The Government have stated their determination to strengthen the economy and to curb inflation. As I have said, the arrangements under which firms at present notify proposals for price increases are under review in the context of our detailed consideration of means of achieving the Government's objective. As for the Prices and Incomes Board, my right hon. Friend will be answering Questions on this subject a little later.

Sir G. Nabarro: As so many of the price increases are motivated by the behaviour of nationalised industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, they are—and as price increases by nationalised industries are now to be the responsibility of Government Departments, will Ministers answer in the House for the reaction of Government Departments to the demands of nationalised industry for price increases?

Mr. Bryan: In his speech on the Address, the Chancellor of the Exchequer

said that all these rises, or possible rises, in the nationalised industries would be carefully scrutinised.

Mr. Barnett: Following the Prime Minister's recent reply, may we take it that the Government intend to allow private industry to increase prices as it will without any Government intervention whatever?

Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman may take it that competition will be introduced during the lifetime of this Government in a way which was not known under the last Government.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he proposes to prevent unjustifiable price rises.

Mr. Bryan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 9th July, 1970.—[Vol. 803, c. 79–80.]

Mr. Sheldon: What action does the Minister propose to take if, as a result of the dock strike or for any other reason, a company abuses its market power and increases prices unjustifiably?

Mr. Bryan: History shows that competition—[Interruption.] I say again, history shows that competition has been much more effective in curbing prices than have any of the administrative measures of the last Government.

Mr. Dell: If the hon. Member believes so intensely in competition, will he inform the House when he expects to complete his current investigation into competition law and when he proposes to introduce legislation creating a Registrar of Monopolies and Mergers?

Mr. Bryan: Neither of those things may be said yet.

Bideford

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will take steps to encourage children in the Bideford area of North Devon to enter local industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Dudley Smith): School leavers in the Bideford


area of North Devon receive full advice and information from the Youth Employment Service about the range of employment opportunities which exist in local industry and this policy will be maintained.

Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise how difficult it is to encourage young people to go into industry in an area in which there have been no new factories in the past? Will he encourage day-release classes from schools so that they can at least go into industry to see what it is all about?

Mr. Smith: I agree that that is one of the points that should be considered. But last month there were 205 unfilled vacancies in the Bideford area, and we expect that the majority will be filled, so the situation is not quite as grave as it might appear.

Okehampton

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the present level of unemployment in the Okehampton area of Devon.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th June, 159 people were registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Okehampton Employment Exchange and the percentage rate of unemployment was 4·2.

Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise the impossible position many small towns are in when they are just outside a development area? The have suffered considerably under a Socialist Government. Let us hope that under my hon. Friend's direction they will not suffer under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Smith: I know my hon. Friend's genuine concern for his constituents of that area. There has been a great deal of dispute over the past month whether the area should be included in the development area or should become an intermediate area. That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address a question to him about it.

Training Facilities (Tyneside)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity

what additional training facilities he intends to provide on Tyneside; and what discussions he has arranged with the training boards and the trades unions on this subject.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend will announce the Government's proposals in respect of all areas and arrange necessary discussions when he has completed his full review of training needs.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not that reply rather disappointing in view of the very clear promise by hon Members opposite before the election of increased facilities for training, and particularly in view of the very high and increasing proportion of unskilled men out of work?

Mr. Smith: We are well aware of the difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's area. That is why we are having a thorough review of all training activities. But the primary need in the hon. Gentleman's area is jobs, and training is ancillary.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will arrange to use the facilities available at certain technical colleges on Tyneside for general engineering training for the younger unemployed in the area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion in our review of industrial training needs.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of certain correspondence with his Department that has already taken place? If any further proposals are put up, will they be considered?

Mr. Smith: Certainly they will be considered. The view has been taken until now that industrial-type courses are best tackled through Government training centres, but there is a possibility of a certain type of industrial course through the training colleges. We are prepared to look at that further.

Weymouth and Portland

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals he has to ease winter unemployment in the Weymouth and Portland areas.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am aware of the seasonal element in unemployment in the Weymouth and Portland area. The Department's local officers do everything they can at all times to help workers registered with us to find employment, including the offer of training opportunities where appropriate.

Mr. King: Would my hon. Friend encourage the use of Portland stone, which is the best stone in the world, in Government building? Would he also guarantee, in an area where there is 5 per cent. unemployment, a fuller issue of industrial development certificates, whether or not it is a development area?

Mr. Smith: The matter of i.d.c.s is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I am sure that he will look sympathetically at that point. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about Portland stone is "Yes, Sir". There has been a fall in the demand for stone products, but the Government would be prepared to look at the question of using this stone for Government buildings.

Dorset

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many unfilled vacancies for jobs there are in Dorset excluding Poole.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Department's vacancy figures relate only to vacancies which were notified to Employment Exchanges and Youth Employment Service Careers Offices and which remained unfilled on a selected day. They do not measure the total demand for labour. On 3rd June, 913 notified vacancies remained unfilled in Dorset excluding Poole.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a need in Dorset not only for more vacancies but for vacancies for better-paid jobs? Will he consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about this?

Mr. Smith: I am certainly prepared to do that. According to the latest estimates by industrialists, there are nearly

2,200 jobs in prospect for the area over the next four years.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures for unemployment in Dorset, including Poole; what were the comparable figures for October 1964; and which trades showed the biggest increase in unemployed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Total numbers registered as unemployed in Dorset at June 1970 and October 1964 were 2,710 and 1,701, respectively. From June 1964 to June 1970 the greatest increases were just over 400 in manufacturing industries, just over 300 in construction and more than 200 in insurance, banking, finance and miscellanous services.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need again to improve job opportunities in Dorset, opportunities which deteriorated greatly under the last Government, particularly for school leavers if they are not to be lost to the county for good?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of that and the Department is doing everything it can to help those out of work. The percentage varies considerably even within my hon. Friend's constituency, from as much as 3·7 per cent. in Bridport to 1·5 per cent. in Dorchester. We are not complacent about the situation.

Mr. David James: Is my hon. Friend aware that these considerations apply particularly to the areas around Gillingham and Shaftesbury in North Dorset?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Motor Industry (Strikes)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps he is taking to reduce strikes in the motor industry.

Mr. R. Carr: I am of course very conscious of the serious effects of strikes in this industry. My Department will as hitherto do what it can to help resolve disputes in the industry. The Motor Vehicle Joint Council, which was established in December last year, is working to improve procedures and pay structures,


and is available to investigate, with the consent of the managements and unions concerned serious unconstitutional stoppages. It did in fact play a useful part in settling disputes in the past.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend propose to continue the arrangements whereby special troubleshooters like Sir Jack Scamp are appointed to rove far and wide over the industry and all its component ancillaries, having regard to the very serious and proliferating effect of all the strikes and stoppages?

Mr. Carr: My general philosophy is to encourage as far as we can self-responsibility within each industry. But I believe that people like Sir Jack Scamp and others can at times play a very useful part, and we do not wish to underestimate that.

Mr. Edelman: Has not experienced proved that the difficulties of this complex industry can be resolved only by a general consensus and not by piecemeal settlements? Will the Minister reconsider the proposal which I have put to him before that a national conference should be convened of all the interests involved?

Mr. Carr: Certainly I will consider that, as I have told the hon. Gentleman. I have not had a great deal of time to consider it in the past week. But I feel that the Motor Vehicle Joint Council begins to get after what is wanted by the hon. Member. We must be careful about more conferences sometimes causing delay in action rather than expendition.

Redundancy Payments

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what changes he proposes to introduce in redundancy payments.

Mr. R. Carr: I am reviewing the redundancy payments scheme, but I cannot yet say what changes may be necessary or desirable.

Building Workers

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many building workers are registered as unemployed in the London area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th June there were 8,451 persons registered as unemployed in the Greater London area who last worked in construction, which covers building, civil engineering and other allied activities. Separate figures for building workers are not available.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not ridiculous, with such a desperate housing need in London, that all these thousands of men should be unemployed? In addition to the expected announcement that the matter is under solemn review, what will the Minister do about it?

Mr. Smith: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should have been addressed to his own Front Bench. His Question was about the London area, and I can tell him that the unemployment rate in the construction industry in the London area is only about half what it is in the rest of the country. This matter is receiving our attention.

Mr. Heffer: As the hon. Gentleman and I were making rather similar proposals to my Front Bench, now that his hon. Friends have the control of the country what will they do about some of those proposals?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member will just give us a little time, he will see.

Monopolies Commission Report (Supply of Beer)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he is taking with the brewery companies to lessen the anti-competitive effects of the tied-house system.

Mr. Dell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he proposes to take on the Monopolies Commission Report on the supply of beer.

Mr. Bryan: My officials will be meeting the brewery companies to discuss the proposals the Department have put to them and the companies' comments on the proposals.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that this discussion has been going on for a long time? May we have his assurance that the Government will not


ditch the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, that the Government will not capitulate to the brewers, and that he will set licensees and the general public free to sell or drink whatever beer they want?

Mr. Bryan: We accept the findings of the Commission that the restrictions on competition involved in the tied-house system, as operated under the present licensing laws, in fact operate and might be expected to operate, against the public interest, which I think covers a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has just asked me. Meetings with the brewery companies are continuing, and after they have been completed we shall decide what steps we shall take.

Mr. Dell: Is the Minister aware that this will be regarded as a test case whether his Government are or are not interested in increasing competition?

Mr. Bryan: I am sure that we shall come out of this test very well.

Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that to make worth-while changes in the tied-house system will require beforehand a very comprehensive review of the licensing system? Is he prepared to undertake that extremely difficult task?

Mr. Bryan: I think that what my hon. Friend is saying is that apart from the economic aspects of the matter there is a very big social aspect as well. In this connection, clearly, the Home Office will have to have quite a large inquiry before we come to a final decision.

Co-operative Insurance Society (Dispute)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he is aware of the dispute between the Co-operative Insurance Society and its agents; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will make a further statement on action taken by his Department in connection with the dispute between the Co-operative Insurance Society and its agents.

Mr. Bryan: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply of 9th July to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Officers of my Department have maintained close touch with the parties following the joint meeting under departmental chairmanship on 29th June. The T.U.C. has seen both sides and is now exploring the possibility of a meeting between the two parties.—[Vol. 803, c. 831–2.]

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that despite Mr. Feather's intervention, there has still been no development? Is he aware that in many districts the girl clerks are now on strike against being asked to do "blacked" work and that, as a result, the C.I.S. will be unable to fulfil its obligations unless it makes some move on what is a very moderate claim?

Mr. Bryan: I am aware that the position is getting increasingly serious. The conciliation officers of my Department only last week met the parties again offering once more the possibility of Departmental chairmanship of a meeting, but that has not been considered profitable at the moment. I can only repeat the assurance that we are closely in touch with the situation and will do everything we can to help.

Mrs. Butler: As this is a serious situation, with damaging effects on all concerned, is not this an appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to take the initiative to convene a fresh conference with both parties to the dispute in an attempt to reach a settlement?

Mr. Bryan: I am prepared to consider that should it look a promising move to make, but at this moment I do not think that it would be.

Courtaulds Factory, Wolverhampton

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action he intends to assist those employees affected by the closure of Courtauld's factory in Wolverhampton.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I understand that the factory will close on 31st July. A team of my Department's officers is working full time in the factory interviewing the employees and giving advice about other jobs and training opportunities. Special approaches are also being


made to employers likely to be interested in the people concerned.

Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this closure will affect 1,300 workers, which is a large percentage? Does he not think that he might make approaches to Courtaulds which, after all, is a private enterprise firm which has just declared £52 million profit? Does he not think that it might be persuaded to treat its workers rather more humanely than is proposed?

Mr. Smith: I understand that this factory has been running at a loss for some time. Most of those who will be affected have fairly good prospects of getting other employment, because, fortunately, Wolverhampton has below the national average rate of unemployment.

Equal Pay

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will bring forward the date for the full implementation of equal pay.

Mr. R. Carr: No, Sir.

Mrs. Short: In view of the Prime Minister's recently discovered interest in women and housewives, and as many women voted him into office, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to change his views about this matter and to give women a fair reward for the job they do in industry and to bring forward the date for the implementation of equal pay? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Carr: This was one of the matters on which I agreed with the right hon. Lady my predecessor. It is difficult to decide the correct speed of implementation. I think that the five-year period, which was set in the Equal Pay Act, is about right as a statutory requirement.

National Board for Prices and Incomes

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will abolish the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what plans he has for the future of

the National Board for Prices and Incomes and, in particular, in view of the Government's policy about inflation, whether he will obtain an early report from the Board on its retail prices reference, or an interim report;

(2) if he will make a statement regarding the successor to Mr. Aubrey Jones as Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will make a statement on the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in view of the fact that the contracts of the Chairman and eight other members, the statutory minimum, all expire at the end of October.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans he has for the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. R. Carr: The future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and its work is being actively considered and I shall be making an announcement in due course.

Mr. Iremonger: While considering this, will my right hon. Friend bear clearly in mind that if the people had wanted Socialism, they would have voted for it?

Mr. Carr: Certainly.

Mr. Grant: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in answering these Questions candidly at this stage, in view of the schizophrenia on his own Front Bench. However, he did not answer the second part of my Question relating to retail prices and the inquiry into retail prices being conducted by the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Carr: At the moment, I am not proposing to ask for an interim report.

Mr. Tugendhat: When my right hon. Friend undertakes this examination of the work of the Prices and Incomes Board, will he also be able to make a statement as soon as possible on the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower?

Mr. Carr: The proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower is a threat which has now been removed from the


country, but we are reviewing all these matters and I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Golding: Who is to be responsible for scrutinising wage settlements in the nationalised industries? Who is to be responsible for deciding the criteria on which the settlements are to be judged? May we be told what type of action is to be taken and by whom if the Government decide that these settlements are too high?

Mr. Carr: In due course.

Mrs. Castle: While we are awaiting the outcome of these further deliberations, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with the statement of the Council of the C.B.I. yesterday that it is essential that prices be allowed to rise?

Mr. Carr: As my hon. Friend has made clear and as history has proved, the encouragement of the maximum amount of competition, coupled with sufficient cash flow in industry to induce the maximum amount of new investment, are the best safeguard of the lowest possible prices.

Industrial Retraining

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps he is taking to increase industrial retraining.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Government are committed to an expansion of retraining facilities and my right hon. Friend will announce our proposals when we have completed our full review of industrial training needs. Meanwhile, existing plans to set up nine more Government training centres are proceeding without interruption.

Mr. Eadie: Can the Minister inform the House that there will be no cut-back in training in relation to any cut-back in public expenditure? May I take it from his Answer that he is telling the House that the promise in the Tory manifesto that there would be an increase in industrial training will be implemented by the Government?

Mr. Smith: Yes. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that there will be

an increase in industrial training. In fact, there was a pledge to this effect in the Gracious Speech. That pledge will be implemented. But we need to survey the whole scene thoroughly before we announce our plans on the subject. By saying that, I think that I have answered the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Mr. Holland: In considering the future of training in this country, will my hon. Friend also look into ways and means of stimulating retraining within industry itself, and not merely in terms of expanding Government training centres?

Mr. Smith: Yes, and one of our proposals is that we should look at the operation of the industrial training boards. We said so in opposition; we said so in our election manifesto, and this will be carried out.

Mr. James Hamilton: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not do what the Tory Government did in 1963, when we had 136,000 unemployed and they then closed two training centres in Scotland?

Mr. Smith: I was not personally responsible for that, but I cannot envisage any closures with the high rate of unemployment that now exists in Scotland.

Yorkshire Woollen Industry (Commonwealth Citizens)

Mr. Merlyn Rees: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many work vouchers have been issued to Commonwealth citizens annually since 1962 for employment in the Yorkshire woollen industry.

Mr. Bryan: I regret that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Rees: Is the hon. Member aware that these vouchers were issued by name to Commonwealth citizens, and only where his Department were sure that there was a shortage of labour in the area? Will he now take steps, in consultation with trade unions and employers in the Yorkshire woollen industry, to replace those Commonwealth citizens who will be repatriated?

Mr. Bryan: I shall certainly go into the question that the hon. Member has just asked, but it is not covered by the original Question.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend's difficulty in answering the question perhaps due to the somewhat vague phrasing of the original Question? It was not quite clear from the original Question whether the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was referring to the specific woollen industry or to the generic wool trade.

Mr. Bryan: I understood the hon. Member to mean what he said, in which case it would have required looking up the records for the last eight years at 73 employment exchanges.

Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he intends to reintroduce the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We are giving urgent consideration to the proposals in Part I of the previous Bill to establish an Employment Medical Advisory Service. So far as Part II is concerned my right hon. Friend is to start further consultations with the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries as to the best way of getting improved arrangements for joint consultation on safety matters.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Member recollect that in 1927, when this was first suggested, it was announced that the voluntary system would be given another chance, but that since that time factory accidents have risen from 148,000 a year to over 300,000 a year? How many more consultations are necessary and how much more blood must pass under the bridge before something is done?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Member knows, there has been an enormous improvement since 1927, and even over the past few years. As the hon. Member heard me say in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, there are practical difficulties to the implementation of Part II, but we shall look at them and see what is the best way to get more effective consultation.

Jute Textile Industry (Employment)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the number of persons employed in the jute textile industry in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding figures for midsummer 1967 and 1964, respectively.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The estimated numbers of those in employment in Scotland in the jute industry at mid-1969, mid-1967 and mid-1964 were 14,800, 14,700 and 16,500, respectively.

Unemployment

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards areas of above average unemployment in regions of below average unemployment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Government attach the greatest importance to promoting full employment and an effective regional development policy. Our local officers do everything they can to help workers who register with us to find employment, including the offer of training opportunities, where appropriate.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Member aware that while there is still widespread concern about the Government's policy towards the main development regions, evidence is also anxiously awaited on precisely what the Government will do about the serious problem of relatively high unemployment in otherwise prosperous regions?

Mr. Smith: Yes. As I said in previous Answers, this is one of the matters that we have under active consideration. Questions of regional policy should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but we are not unaware of the problem to which the hon. Member referred.

Faversham

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the comparative figures for the number of persons employed in the brick industry in the employment areas


covered by the Faversham constituency in October, 1964 and June, 1970.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Employment estimates for local areas are made only for each mid-year and the latest are for mid-1969. The estimated numbers of those in employment in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Sheerness employment exchange areas in bricks, fireclay and refractory goods at mid-1964 and mid-1969 were about 500 and about 200, respectively.

Mr. Moate: Does the Minister recognise that this loss of jobs in the brick trade is a serious cause of the high rate of unemployment in North-East Kent? Will he take urgent steps to remedy the damage done to the brick trade and the building trade as a result of six years of disastrous Socialist Government?

Mr. Smith: It is fair to say that the figures have been inflated by the closure of four brickfields in this area, but I understand that there are no serious resettlement problems.

Government Training Centres (Scotland)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when he proposes to publish his proposals for increasing the number of industrial training centres in Scotland.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I have nothing to add at present to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 9th July and to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) earlier today.—[Vol. 803, c. 80.]

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that the Answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 9th July did not tell us anything that we did not already know, namely, that the plans were those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? We should now like to know whether we can be assured that there will be an increase in the number of training places and, secondly, the extent of the guarantee he intends to give private firms to allow them to build up their training facilities.

Mr. Smith: The latter question is not for me, but I can assure the hon. Member

that in the survey that we are making the intention is to increase retraining facilities. We are very conscious of the need for this, but it takes time to make exactly the right sort of plans to become effective.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it serves little purpose to increase training facilities in Scotland when the trade unions in the engineering industry are able to prevent the employment in that industry of those who have been trained in Government training centres, and even to prevent the employment of those in skilled jobs who are fully trained for those jobs in the engineering industry?

Mr. Smith: Successful retraining depends on an adequate labour market and also on the willing co-operation of trade unions and employers. I very much hope that we shall get it when we announce our proposals.

Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will seek so to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956 as to enable newsagents to combine together in order to negotiate with new newspaper suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryan: I do not think that a change would be justified. There are in any case serious difficulties in amending the Act in the interests of a particular trade or industry.

Mr. King: Have not the courts overturned the argument used by the Board of Trade in 1968, and is it not now the position that retailers are powerless in any attempt to bargain with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association? Is not this an undesirable monopoly situation?

Mr. Bryan: I do not think that I can comment on the effect of the Act on a particular course of action or situation. The relevant factors are not merely the terms of the Act; they are also the orders of the Restrictive Practices Court, which, in the newspaper trade, have prohibited the making of certain types of agreement.

Bedwellty

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the present incidence of juvenile unemployment in the Bedwellty constituency; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the situation.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th June there were 175 boys and girls under 18 years of age registered as unemployed at the Aberbargoed, Blackwood and Cross Keys careers offices. Careers officers are doing everything possible to help them find suitable vacancies.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Answer. However, I hope he realises that the figures disguise the real tragedy of youth unemployment, which is seen in emigration and in severe insecurity among youngsters. For instance, he will be aware that 62½ per cent. of the number of children entitled to leave school in this area in Easter this year returned to school. Will he encourage his colleagues to bear this in mind in their long-awaited reconsideration of regional employment policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Smith: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is genuine. Young people who cannot obtain training or progressive employment in their home areas may receive financial assistance under the Training Allowances Scheme to enable them to live away from home. We shall do all we can for the young people of the area.

Bargoed and Caerphilly

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the current rate of male unemployment in the Bargoed and Caerphilly employment exchange areas.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 8th June the rates of unemployment for men in the Bargoed and Caerphilly travel-to-work areas were 7·6 and 8·0 per cent. Respectively.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these mining areas are threatened with further pit closures and that without the previous Government's

incentive policy of attracting industry to these areas the percentage would be much higher? Will he exert all his influence with the Prime Minister to give a clear assurance to the people of these areas in Wales that the previous policy will be continued until the situation has been completely remedied?

Mr. Smith: The question of pit closures is not for me, but I draw some encouragement from the fact that the June total of registered unemployed in this area was the lowest for any June since 1966.

Industrial Relations

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations he had with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress since 19th June; to what extent he discussed his proposed Industrial Relations Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Carr: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 9th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 79.]

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when he meets the General Secretary of the T.U.C. he will congratulate him on the sterling work he is doing to resolve official and unofficial strikes and that he will not introduce legislation which has proved to be a nonsense in other countries in which it is operating?

Mr. Carr: On the last part of the supplementary question, we shall be putting forward proposals for a framework for the more orderly conduct of industrial relations and they must be judged on their merits. On the first part, I have frequently, both from the benches opposite and from this side of the House, paid tribute to the work of Mr. Victor Feather.

Registered Disabled Persons

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether he will give the percentage increase or decrease in the unemployment of registered disabled persons, nationally and for the London Borough of Harrow, as between June, 1964, and June, 1970.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The percentage increase in the unemployment of registered disabled persons between June, 1964, and June, 1970, was 38·6 per cent. for Great Britain and 132·3 per cent. for the London Borough of Harrow.

Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend take urgent action to put into reverse the policies of the previous Government which have resulted in such distressing unemployment figures, nationally and in Harrow, among people who cannot look after themselves?

Mr. Smith: I know my hon. Friend's great interest in the subject, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the disablement resettlement officer service is being reorganised and substantially strengthened and that new arrangements are being introduced for the more intensive inspection of records of employers who have a statutory disabled quota obligation.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what has been the rise in the Retail Price Index during the last three months; what this represents in money value; and if he will estimate the effect of an equivalent rise on the purchasing power of the £ sterling over five years.

Mr. Bryan: The rise in the General Index of Retail Prices between 17th February, 1970, and 19th May, 1970, was 2·4 per cent. which is equivalent to about sixpence in the £.
If this rate of increase continued over a period of five years, the purchasing power of the £ sterling, as measured by the General Index of Retail Prices, would fall by about 7s. 6d.

Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures which he has given prove that the policy of statutory control of prices and incomes propagated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite is absolutely useless for controlling prices?

Mr. Bryan: This subject was debated at length and in depth during the recent General. Election which resulted in a resounding victory for the Government. It is also an advertisement for the fact that competition is far more effective than

any step taken by the Labour Government to curb prices.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has made a projection of price increases. What steps has his Ministry in mind to ensure that that projection does not become a reality?

Mr. Bryan: Our policies, which will unfold over the next few months, will convince the hon. Gentleman that he is in good hands.

PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will now meet the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister use the occasion of that meeting to pay tribute to the significant part which the statesmanlike and moderate words of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic played in cooling the passions of those who feel strongly that the Orange walks, however well ordered they may be, are provocative? Will he also pay tribute to the temperate manner of the minority in Northern Ireland during the walks?

The Prime Minister: I paid tribute to the attitude taken by all people in Northern Ireland in the message which I sent to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland earlier this week. I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute which he has paid to Mr. Lynch.

Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland the feeling of gratitude of the whole House to the security forces who have managed to bring about an atmosphere in which the wishes for peace of the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland have triumphed over the purveyors of disorder and disruption?

The Prime Minister: I sent a message of appreciation to the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, and he has sent me a message of appreciation in return.

Mr. Latham: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make


some inquiries into the circumstances of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who is in prison in Northern Ireland? Also, in his discussions, would he point out what a gesture of conciliation it would be if the Northern Ireland authorities were to release the hon. Member?

The Prime Minister: I could not agree with the last part of the supplementary question, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be talking to the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning and he will be able to discuss certain aspects of this matter with him. There are other aspects which my right hon. Friend the Lord President has in hand.

Mr. Callaghan: When the Prime Minister talks to the Northern Ireland Prime Minister about affairs in Northern Ireland, will he discuss with him the question of the next march which we have to fear or look forward to—that of the Derry boys in August? Many people think that it could be much more provocative than the last march, and I hope that it will be discussed.

The Prime Minister: We appreciate the possible seriousness of the situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already had discussions about this matter and he will continue them tomorrow.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those responsible for the riots and appalling loss of life and injury in Northern Ireland recently are the extreme republican elements?

The Prime Minister: I think that the fact that last weekend passed off peacefully has given considerable gratification to the House. We must now look to the future.

Mr. McManus: As a gesture of good will to the minority, and to reassure them, will the Prime Minister, when talking to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, ask that gentleman to sever his links with the Orange Order?

The Prime Minister: These are internal matters for Northern Ireland which I would not discuss with the Prime Minister.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Far East.

The Prime Minister: I shall be attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Singapore in January.

Mr. Sheldon: As a result of the previous Administration's policy, the dispositions of our forces in the Far East will result in a net run-down of forces, which, in the absence of any instruction to the contrary, will continue. Has any contrary instruction been given?

The Prime Minister: As I explained in the House on Tuesday, the number of our forces in the Far East is much greater than we visualise remaining there under the five-Power force. The Secretary of State for Defence is going to the Far East in the last week of this month to have discussions with the other four Commonwealth Powers involved about the make-up of the force and, naturally, he and his advisers will then be able to settle the future dispositions.

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister if he will carry out the engagement, accepted by his predecessor, to attend the General Assembly of the United Nations this autumn so as to participate with other heads of Governments in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the United Nations and the launching of the Second Development Decade.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister expect to be able to assure the General Assembly that Britain will make a substantial contribution to the objectives of the Second Development Decade? If so, will he ensure that the Cabinet bears all this in mind when considering the aid figures as part of the public expenditure review?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not yet considered the contents of my


speech, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows of my deep personal concern about aid and U.N.C.T.A D., and it may well be a suitable opportunity for me again to make the position of this country plain.

UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: President Nixon has invited me to visit the United States. I look forward to doing so at a mutually convenient time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much pleasure it will give hon. Members on this side if his first official visit abroad should include a call on the Head of State who had the prescience to realise some time ago that my right hon. Friend would be sitting where he is today—where he is likely to remain for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Faulds: Ha! He is helpful.

The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy to visit the President again, and I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) in doing so.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: In view of the high proportion of Questions addressed to the Prime Minister, from both sides of the House, which seem to wish him to be elsewhere than in this House, will he consider making arrangements to stay away permanently?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate, however, that, unlike my predecessor, I have been able to resist those blandishments.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: When visiting the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister carefully consider the reasons why the United States has reached the conclusion that it would be unwise to sell arms to the Republic of South Africa?

The Prime Minister: There will be ample opportunity to discuss that matter later.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister if he will request the Chairman of the Security Commission to review the present immunity of hon. Members from telephone tapping.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there are to be any changes in general practice they will not be made secretly or unilaterally—in other words, that in this, as in other things, he will avoid the bad example of his predecessor?

The Prime Minister: The situation remains as it was announced by my predecessor on 17th November, 1966: there is no tapping of the telephones of hon. Members. I fully accept, however, the point made by my hon. Friend and I give the same undertaking as my predecessor gave—that if there were any development of a kind requiring a change in policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the previous decision was neither secret nor unilateral? The House was told when the decision was taken. It was also told, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that should any developments require reconsideration of the policy, the House would again be told.

The Prime Minister: I understand that that is so.

Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the House was informed two years after the decision was taken in secret and that it was a decision directly contrary to the unanimous advice of the Birkett Commission, which reported in 1957?

The Prime Minister: I cannot take responsibility for what happened under the previous Administration, but I have given the House my own undertaking that if a change of policy were required, I would come voluntarily to the House and make a statement at such moment as was compatible with the security of the State.

Mr. Rose: If the Prime Minister decides on a change of policy, will he first authorise the tapping of the telephones of those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who appear to have a hot line direct to Salisbury and Cape Town?

Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend explain why Members of Parliament should be immune?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the anxieties which exist in some parts of the House about the fact that Members of Parliament should appear to have privileges other than those of other citizens, and I have shared those anxieties. I have given very careful consideration to the matter since I became Prime Minister. I believe that it is right that we should retain the present position. There are various other anxieties, as well as security anxieties, in people's minds, both inside and outside the House, on the political aspects of this matter. I therefor believe that until such time as I feel that for the security of the State it is essential that the policy should be changed, we should retain the present position.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement which he made will meet with very wide acceptance in most quarters of the House because of the importance that must be attached to free communication between a Member of Parliament and anyone who wants to get in touch with him?

The Prime Minister: I accept that, but I think that the widespread dislike of telephone tapping goes much further than that. It is a process which, generally, is thoroughly disliked, and I state this principle with only the proviso that the security of the State must be maintained.

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE (REORGANISATION)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his further proposals for the reorganisation of Departments of State and the machinery of government.

The Prime Minister: I expect to do so in the Autumn, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Warmly welcoming the reduction in the number of Ministers—Conservative quality instead of Socialist quantity—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is busy writing the obituary of the Land Commission and the Prices and Incomes Board? Could we also have a bit of retrenchment in the nationalised race relations industry?

The Prime Minister: I have announced that we are reviewing a large number of aspects of the structure of government. I do not wish to deal with any particular aspects at this moment, but I will make a general statement in the autumn.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the changes in the machinery of Government, many of which are probably necessary but which are now quite frequent, are not having a rather deleterious effect upon the Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: I am very well aware of the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and I am anxious to avoid them. That is why I am taking a certain amount of time in making dispositions, because I want them to last.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Recalling the exchange between the Prime Minister and myself in the debate on the Gracious Speech, when, I think, he rather misunderstood a reference which I made—a reference to the co-ordination of housing between the Departments of Housing and Local Government and Transport, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not proposing to appoint an Overlord, as I did—may I ask whether he was aware that what I was referring to was a decision, taken originally last October and about to be carried into effect, for the total integration of those Departments with the Ministry of Works, too, with a Minister and not an Overlord?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, no decision had been announced, nor am I aware of what the previous Administration decided, because the papers are not available to me. I am considering various proposals which are being put forward so that I can make a full announcement in the autumn.

VIETNAM

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the United Kingdom's co-chairmanship of the Geneva Agreement, he will hold consultations with the Heads of Government of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand about seeking a solution to the Vietnam conflict.

The Prime Minister: We are in regular contact with these and other Governments concerned with finding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister give a short, simple and categorical assurance that no matter what invitations his Government receive, British troops will never at any time be involved in the Vietnam conflict?

The Prime Minister: It has always been our position that we did not believe that British troops should be sent to Vietnam.

PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his speech at Cromer, North Norfolk, on 4th July on Great Britain's future, in the Library of the House.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister accept that, albeit that it was a fairly simple speech to fairly simple people attending a Tory Party garden fete, there was one glaring omission in the speech in that it made no reference whatever to industrial safety? Does the Prime Minister recall that in his speech he talked about making a nation worth living in, and does he recognise that no nation can be worth living in when the industrial worker does not get the protection that he urgently needs at this time?

The Prime Minister: I do not know quite what effect the hon. Member's remarks have in South Ayrshire. They will not gain him great popularity in North Norfolk. Industrial safety is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who has heard the hon. Member's remarks.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for co-ordinating Ministerial responsibilities for consumer protection in one consumer protection Department.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his reply and consider the Co-operative Movement's suggestion on a Ministry of Consumer Welfare in view of the ever-growing importance and complexity of consumer problems and the difficulties of the fragmentation of consumer questions among at least half-a-dozen Ministries, in none of which is consumer protection the prime responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be appropriate to create a separate Department to attend only to these matters for they are, of course, dealt with by a considerable number of Government Departments.

NATIONAL DOCKS STRIKE

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the national docks dispute.
In the resumed discussions between the parties under my chairmanship last Monday, the port employers tabled a revised offer. This included the previous offer to increase guaranteed payments to £4 a day, or £20 a week minimum, for every registered dock worker. In addition, they proposed that the £2 modernisation supplement should be increased to £3 per week in those ports where it had not already been merged into the time rate or where interim additional payments had not already been made. They reiterated that they could not agree to any increase in the national basic time rate.
The unions decided to report this offer to a national docks delegate conference on Wednesday, 15th July. They meanwhile asked their members to continue normal working. Most ports were, however, stopped on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The outcome of the delegate conference was reported to me yesterday afternoon by the union representatives. I was informed by Mr. Jones that a recommendation that the employers' offer should be accepted as a basis for further negotiations had been rejected by 43 votes to 39 and that it had been decided to conduct an official strike "until the claim for a higher basic rate is achieved".
The port employers then informed the union representatives in my presence that they were prepared to hold further talks only if the strike was withdrawn; and that, for the reasons which had been discussed at length in the talks under my chairmanship last weekend, they could not agree any increase in the existing basic time rate.
I subsequently had separate meetings with representatives of the T.U.C. and of the C.B.I.
From all these discussions it became clear that the unions were not prepared to resume talks on the basis of an increase in the modernisation payment which had been under discussion last weekend. For their part, the employers were not prepared to take part in talks on the existing basic rates, nor while the strike was still on.
In view of the very grave consequences for the nation of the deadlock resulting from the positions taken by the two sides, I have decided to appoint immediately a Court of Inqiury. I will announce the terms of reference and membership as soon as possible.
This will involve a full and independent investigation and assessment to be made of the merits of the unions' claim and of the employers' offer. In view of this, and the very serious effects of the strike for the nation, as well as for the future prosperity of the industry and of the dockers themselves, I would urge the unions to consider suspending their industrial action.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all regret that his efforts have failed and that we now face a protracted national dock strike with all the embittering of relations which can flow from that? But is he also aware that the attitude of the employers in

refusing to continue talks although Mr. Jones had expressed his willingness to continue to try to find a way of breaking the deadlock is rather disturbing? While we would, of course, all hope that a Court of Inquiry would help, could we not ask him, before he sets up a Court of Inquiry, to make another effort himself, and a very determined effort, to bring the two sides together and to get talks resumed?

Mr. Carr: My judgment is that the best way of making progress is now through a Court of Inquiry, but, of course, I would be prepared to listen to any representations which either side wish to make to me and, of course, to see them. I hope the right hon. Lady is wrong in her use of the word "protracted". I also hope that we shall not criticise in this House the attitude of either side. I have attempted as much as I can, I hope sucessfully, not to do so. I think we should realise that both sides have very firm positions and that both sides are, in their own ways, showing inflexibility because of the depth of their feelings on the merits of the issue. For a hopeful moment late last Sunday night and on Monday that inflexibility dissolved and we seemed to have found a common ground for negotiation. It is a great pity—that is an understatement—that by a narrow majority yesterday that common ground for negotiation was cut away from under us.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Secretary of State how long he expects it will be before the Court of Inquiry can be expected to report? Secondly, do we understand from his replies that it is unlikely that negotiations between the two sides will be resumed till the Court of Inquiry has reported? I hope he will be able to say that is not the case. With reference to my own constituency, while grateful for the consideration already given to it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say that places such as Orkney and Shetland and other islands will at least be no worse off than those places whose main communications are across land?

Mr. Carr: I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants in respect of the last part of his question. As to the first part of his question, this


is a very complicated matter, as I found in the lengthy discussions I shared over last weekend. It is clear that a Court of Inquiry could not reach its conclusions in a day or two, but, of course, I shall appoint it with maximum speed and, of course, I shall make clear, though I doubt whether that will be necessary, to the Court of Inquiry the urgency with which investigations must be carried out. As to the negotiations, I would not have taken the decision to appoint a Court of Inquiry unless I had most regretfully come to the conclusion that we were not likely to make further progress by direct negotiations between the parties, but, as I said, I am still prepared to listen to both of them.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, as I am sure he does, that there are not two sides in this dispute but three, and that the third is the side which is being sat on? I refer to the millions of people in the country endeavouring to live on small fixed incomes who have to try to bear the brunt of inflation which is caused by what many regard as only a uniquely selfish approach.

Mr. Carr: I have made clear, I hope, both in this House and to the parties, the immense national damage which is going to be caused by this dispute and by every day it continues.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not perfectly clear that had the employers been prepared to have made one gesture in relation to an increase in the basic time rate there could have been a settlement of this dispute? Is it, therefore, not clear that the full responsibility for the present situation in fact squarely rests on the shoulders of the employers and their inflexible attitude? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the other day said he was not prepared to lean on either side—I am not opposed to the idea of a Court of Inquiry—could he not, even at this late hour, before establishing the Court of Inquiry, now lean on the employers in order to get a fair proposal to the dockers so that we can get a quick resumption of work?

Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Member is not helping the cause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—we should have in

mind. The employers did make an offer—

Mr. Heffer: Not on the time rate.

Mr. Carr: —which the union leaders were prepared to discuss and prepared to put to their delegate conference. It was evidently sufficiently real an offer for further negotiations on that basis, only to be rejected by the narrowest of margins. I do really think, therefore, that it is simply not fair to try to apportion blame in that way, and I will have no part in it on either side.

Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the fact that this is now an official strike, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the employers not to maintain the rigid attitude that they will not negotiate till the men are back? It has always been accepted doctrine that the Government take one view of an unofficial strike and another of an official strike. In this case it would be quite wrong for the employers to persist in this attitude and it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to encourage them to negotiate even while the strike is still on.

Mr. Carr: I have probed both sides very fully and deeply on this matter. The House must realise that the first thing is to find a subject about which the two sides can and will negotiate. We believed that that had been found when we got the talks on to the subject of an increase in the modernisation pay. Now we have not a subject about which the two sides feel able to negotiate.

Mr. Holland: Although we shall hear more about the Court of Inquiry on a subsequent occasion, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the terms of reference will be unrestricted, and that the powers to hear evidence will be equally unrestricted?

Mr. Carr: The terms of reference will be guided by the 1919 Act under which the Court of Inquiry will be set up, and certainly they will be sufficient to allow the matter to be gone into in the depth required.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current trouble stems from the fact that until four weeks ago the employers were negotiating rather


expansively because they were all expecting, and most of them were hoping, that the industry would be nationalised and that they would not have to pay the wage inceases—[Laughter.] In the last four weeks they have suddenly tightened up because, for the first time, it is their own money they are talking about. Is he aware that, notwithstanding the hilarity of his hon. Friends, everybody in the industry, employers and workers alike, know that to be the case, and will he ensure that the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry are such that that key factor can be taken into account?

Mr. Carr: The purpose of the Court of Inquiry is to find a means whereby the national dock strike can be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, and that is what should guide my drafting of the terms of reference. The hon. Member will know, and the House should realise, that the average earnings of dockers over the last four years have risen by 57 per cent., compared with an increase of 22½ per cent. in the average earnings of male workers in the same period. As far as I am aware, it has been the employers' money which has been paying those wages. I do not think the hon. Member aids the cause of peace in this dispute by remarks of that sort.

Mr. Evelyn King: Apart from the wider issue, will the Minister say something about the much narrower but quite serious issue which affects Weymouth in my constituency, another port on the South Coast and the Channel Islands? There has been a rumour that the employees were willing to make special provision in this area. Will the Minister confirm this, or say something about it?

Mr. Carr: I am afraid that I cannot confirm it absolutely. I hope that it will be the case, and I will keep it in mind. I hope, in view of my appointment of the Court of Inquiry, that the unions will listen to the plea, which I hoped could have the support of the whole House, that industrial action should be suspended while the Court of Inquiry sits.

Mrs. Castle: Without wishing in any way to prejudge the merits of the arguments for the claim and counter offer—although it is only fair to point out that there has been a sharp reduction in manpower during this period and therefore a

marked increase in productivity; fair is fair, let us just put that on the record—is not there one very marked difference between the two sides, in that Mr. Jack Jones is willing and anxious to continue talking and the employers are refusing to do so? In that situation, is not it the duty of the right hon. Gentleman now to lean on the employers to talk?

Mr. Carr: Unfortunately, because of the decision of the delegate conference yesterday by that very narrow majority, Mr. Jones is not able to talk about the one area in relation to the basic rate—that is not the only subject—which after much probing both sides felt able to negotiate about. This is the tragedy of the present position. It is not just unwillingness to talk; it is a lack of ability now to find an area of negotiation about which the parties are able to negotiate.

Mr. John Hall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the serious long-term damage that could be caused to the economy of the country and the extreme delicacy of the present position, that it would be far better if we did not make his task more difficult by continuing questions?

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the rumour widely spread that he intends to appoint Lord Kindersley as Chairman of the Court of Inquiry? While we all appreciate the efforts the right hon. Gentleman has made over the past few days and recognise the gravity of a national dock strike, may it not be that what the country will be suffering from in the next few weeks is an absence of instant government from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Carr: I would have thought that the Government might be greatly benefiting from the last quality which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the first part of the question, on all sides we should avoid imaginative suggestions, even though they may be amusing, unless they are very well considered.

Mr. Delargy: The Secretary of State said that the employers had made an offer which I think he described as a reasonable offer. Had that offer anything to do with the basic rate, which is what the dispute is about? It is about nothing else and, strictly speaking, any other offer apart from an offer on the basic rate is irrelevant.

Mr. Carr: I do not think that I applied any adjective to the offer. I stated that the employers had made an offer, and that it was an offer which was sufficiently interesting for Mr. Jack Jones and other union leaders to feel that it should be presented to the delegate conference, which was done yesterday. The delegate conference thought it sufficiently interesting as a basis for negotiation to reject it only by the narrowest of margins.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to try to get the two sides together—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help to solve a difficult problem.

Mr. Wilson: I am basing myself on the right hon. Gentleman's statement in which he said that he had decided to set up a Court of Inquiry. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude on this, which I have no doubt he will reconsider from day to day, and in view of certain words used in his statement, is he saying that there is a reversion to what used to be the practice of not having negotiations when a strike is in progress? Is he aware—I am sure he must be—that over a period of years that old principle has been departed from, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, not only in official but even in unofficial strikes, and that this has led to settlement? Is he saying that it is a principle, as the employers are apparently saying, that there can be no negotiations unless the strike has been called off?
The right hon. Gentleman has twice quoted the 57 per cent. wage figure, which I have no reason to think is anything but accurate, but will he say by how much productivity has gone up in that period and how much the labour force in the industry has gone down as a result of that productivity?

Mr. Carr: The labour force during this period has declined by about 25 per cent.—I am speaking off the cuff from memory. I will answer a detailed question on this on another occasion if I am asked. The cost of labour per ton moved through the docks, which is a crude measure of productivity because it takes no account of new capital investment for example, is, according to our

calculations, about the same as it was four years ago, which means that the increase in wages has been offset by the reduction in the number of people, although that measure takes no account of increased investment. This is a good part of the story, and this is why it is so vitally important to get on with the problem of modernisation, the pay structures and the methods of working in the docks.
The great tragedy of the strike is that it has interrupted this process. As for the earlier part of the question, I would simply say that there was a strike in progress yesterday when I saw both sides separately and together. This quite clearly shows that there is no rigid principle about negotiations not taking place when a strike is in progress.
I regret the first remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. It simply is not true, nor do I feel the unions or employers would feel it was true. But for the situation which faces us, I would be tempted to comment more sharply upon the matter.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I want him to understand that I was not trying to suggest that he himself was trying to maintain a rigid position. I was basing myself on his own statement when he based his own course of action on the fact that the employers were not willing, and I quote
to take part in talks … while the strike was still on.
That is what I was trying to draw to his attention. I was not trying to criticise the right hon. Gentleman. We understand the very grave situation and the difficult personal policy dilemma which the Minister faces. We shall give him all the help that we can.

Mr. Carr: I accept what the Leader of the Opposition says, but he must also realise that the blockage in the way of talks is not on only one side. There are subjects about which the unions will not talk. This is what is creating the difficulty, because what the unions will talk about the employers will not, and vice versa. If we could get common ground about negotiation, which I thought we had achieved last Monday evening, I feel quite sure that talks could and would have taken place.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Proclamation of State of Emergency

Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:
Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 16th day of July, 1970 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

Message to be considered upon Monday next.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Faced with a nation wide stoppage in the docks, the Government must take steps to discharge their responsibility to maintain essential services and to minimise disruption which could have a serious effect on the life of the community. They have therefore thought it right to advise the proclamation of an emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended, followed by the making of Regulations under Section 2.
Where a situation arises which carries with it a serious threat to the essentials of life of the community, it is the clear duty of the Government of the day to make use of the machinery provided by Parliament for such a contingency.
The Regulations under Section 2 were made this afternoon. Copies will be available tomorrow. My right hon. Friend will be making, in his Business Statement, an announcement about the arrangements for debating these Regulations. They are on the same lines as those made in 1966, and confer enabling

powers on Ministers which they will only use if and when the necessity arises.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Government have reached the conclusion that these powers are necessary, the Opposition would not wish to challenge them if they are essential to keep the life of the community going. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that they are on the same lines as the previous occasion when they were heavily criticised by the then Opposition. May I ask the Home Secretary whether he intends to convey to the House that these Regulations give an all-embracing grip by the State on every citizen. There is at least one power in the Gracious Message that I certainly would want to look at a little carefully.
May I put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman about increases in food prices. Will he take power to prescribe maximum prices for foodstuffs, in case anybody seeks to take advantage of the situation by putting them up unfairly?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. These Regulations will be debated in the very near future and they will, as in 1966, cover the question of fixing prices.

Mr. Atkinson: The Home Secretary will have heard his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity say that neither side has indicated whether it would accept the findings of the Court of Inquiry. The Home Secretary no doubt will realise that the employers have said that they are not prepared to negotiate while the strike continues. Is it not an intolerable situation for troops to be used in the docks while the employers refuse to negotiate? Will he also appreciate that there are many on this side of the House, and many trade unionists, who will call for extension of the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if there is any threat of the use of troops while the employers refuse to negotiate? Will he give an assurance that no instructions will be given for the use of troops in the docks while the employers refuse to negotiate with the trade unions?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has appealed to the unions concerned to call off their industrial action while the Court of Inquiry is being held. If, as I


hope, that happens, there will be no need for emergency action, but the Government must take the necessary action to maintain essential services to the community.

Mr. Latham: If the right hon. Gentleman disregards the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)—[interruption.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite are growling about since I have not put my point yet—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will try to give an undertaking to avoid a situation in which private commercial interests have cargoes handled at the taxpayers' expense? For example, should the services of troops be employed, could he see to it that the firms concerned are charged the full economic cost involved?

Mr. Maudling: That seems eminently a point to be made in the debate on the Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that we are debating this issue on Monday.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Home Secretary please say plainly whether it is proposed, and at what stage, to send troops into the docks? Is he aware that nothing is less likely to expedite a settlement?

Mr. Maudling: Troops will be used in the docks if it is necessary to maintain essential services. The actual timing and use of them will depend on the requirements of the port emergency committees which will be set up under the Regulations. However, as I have said, if my right hon. Friend's appeal is heeded, it will not be necessary.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Home Secretary has been very one-sided in his replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and Barking (Mr. Driberg). He keeps on referring to the appeal by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to the unions. Will not he say equally to the House and the country that the employers must abandon their rigid position in refusing to negotiate while the strike is on? Only then will he have made an evenhanded statement, and only then will we be able to judge any proposed Regulations

issued on Monday in the light of his statement today.

Mr. Maudling: No, I will not, any more than my right hon. Friend, be involved on one side or the other. The point is that a Court of Inquiry is to be set up and, in those circumstances, I hope that the industrial action will not continue.

Mr. Molloy: Will the Home Secretary impress upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the need to understand that the key issue in the strike, which probably would end it within 48 hours or less, is whether the employers will agree to sit down and discuss the basic rate of dock workers? That is the whole point which is holding up procedures. The dockers and the union leaders cannot be expected to back-track. Their real dilemma and that which now faces the nation is simply that the port employers are not prepared to discuss with the dockers' representatives the essence of this dispute, which is the basic rate.

Mr. Maudling: I had the impression that my right hon. Friend had already dealt with that point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Home Secretary said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the Regulations are similar to the last ones. However, he will be aware that this is a different situation, in that it is an official strike. Will he try, wherever possible, to discuss with the union any action that he proposes before actually taking it? That may tend, at least, to prevent tempers being worse frayed than they are. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman will have the last word, but I think that it would be helpful if he discussed any proposed action with the union leaders.

Mr. Maudling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Regulations are on the same lines because the degree of emergency is the same. On his second point, I think that, once again, this would be better raised in the debate on the Regulations.

Mr. English: In view of their existing commitments if troops have to be used, are there sufficient troops available for the purpose? Secondly, will


the right hon. Gentleman say what other Regulations which it is proposed to introduce are likely to become immediately effective?

Mr. Maudling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the answer is "Yes". On his second point, I ask him to await the publication of the Regulations.

Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the powers which he seeks are all-embracing, as he seems to indicate? Will they include the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman interceding on behalf of an hon. Member of this House who is in gaol in Ulster?

Mr. Callaghan: Cannot we have a clearer answer than that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)? Surely it is not possible to find troops to replace 50,000 dockers for the unloading and loading of cargoes in our docks and, therefore, the situation is extremely serious? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the dock workers in the Royal Group of docks has already said that if the Army has to be used the troops will not be hindered by the dockers but that the Army's task will be an extremely difficult and dangerous one and will be impossible to carry out for sheer lack of numbers?

Mr. Maudling: It will be a difficult task, and this is part of the measure of the difficulty that we face. However, we are satisfied that adequate personnel are available to carry out the Government's duty, which is to maintain essential services.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), can the right hon. Gentleman say which troops he will use for unloading cargoes in the ports of Belfast and Londonderry?

Mr. Maudling: Those who are most appropriate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Whitelaw. Statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the business of the House for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH JULY—Consideration of Her Majesty's most Gracious Message and of the Motion to approve the Emergency Regulations.
TUESDAY, 21ST JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Supply (2nd Allotted day): There will be a debate on the supply of arms to South Africa, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motions relating to Cinematograph Films and Judges.
THURSDAY, 23RD JULY—Motions relating to Local Loans, White Fish and Herring Subsidies, Gas (Borrowing Powers) and Housing Subsidies.
Second Reading of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill.
FRIDAY, 24TH JULY—If the course of events allows, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment.
May I add that I am fully aware of the interest in an early announcement about the proposed duration of the Adjournment, but in the present circumstances I think the House will feel it right that I should defer making a statement for a few more days.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the serious situation which has arisen, naturally the House will wish to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in the change of business which has become necessary since last week. Can he say at this stage on what day he expects we shall debate the Motion that the House do adjourn next Friday? Secondly, is he now in a position to say what are the Government's intentions in relation to the Bill concerning the coal-mining industry? Is it now intended to bring


it forward, even if not next week, and will it contain the same Clauses in respect of elderly miners particularly, as were in our Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's generous remarks about the change in business. As for the debate on the Motion proposing the Adjournment, I would prefer to await events. I will make a statement early next week, when the situation is clearer.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government will introduce a Bill this Session to lessen the effects of contraction in the coal industry on miners and the mining community after the existing powers expire at the end of March next year.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On that point, there is great concern about it in mining areas. There is to be a big meeting in Durham on Saturday which a number of hon. and right hon. Members expect to attend. Will the Bill contain the same conditions in respect of elderly miners as our Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman very properly presses me, and I promised that I would give him a positive answer as soon as I could. I have now given him a positive answer that we will introduce a Bill for the purposes that I have set out. However, it would not be right before the publication of this Bill to say anything more at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have made it clear that the purpose of the Bill will be to lessen the effects of contraction in the coal industry on miners and the mining community after the existing powers expire in March. That is the purpose. There is nothing difficult in this. But it would not be right to try and give details of the legislation before it is published.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can we have an announcement of my right hon. Friend's intentions about the debates on the Orders relating to the redistribution of Parliamentary constituencies?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was hoping to have taken these next week, had it not been for the unfortunate emergency. In the new circumstances, they will be taken as soon as possible after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Latham: May I thank the Leader of the House for the courtesy and kindness that he has shown in listening to representations that I have made to him—[Interruption.] I wish that that courtesy were emulated by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. May I ask what is the result of his consideration of my request for time to debate Early Day Motion No. 8 and the remaining matters in the submission which I made to you, Mr. Speaker, last Friday week? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that apart from the broad issues involved, there is urgency about the specific case which has given rise to this matter. Therefore, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? May we have a statement from one of his colleagues? Secondly, is it possible to have time to debate a Motion to change the rules of the House with regard to Ministerial responsibility for British subjects in prison in Northern Ireland?

[That the matter of the rights of honourable Members of this House who have been committed to Her Majesty's Prisons, and of their constituents, be referred to a Select Committee to be appointed for this purpose, and that they do consider and report, in particular, what action should be taken if any person deliberately delays the receipt of mail by an honourable Member, interferes with a Member's right to correspond with any constituent, member of Her Majesty's Government, Department of State or another Member of this House, forcibly prevents a Member from attending this House, or prevents a Member who wishes to do so from interviewing a constituent or a fellow Member who is assisting him in the conduct of his constituency business.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As he fully appreciates, his Motion is concerned with the general position of hon. Members who may find themselves in prison. On the general point, I intend to put down a Motion proposing that the matters raised in the hon. Gentleman's Motion should be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges as soon as it is set up.
The particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for the


Northern Ireland Government. However, the Minister of Home Affairs, Northern Ireland, is to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tomorrow. They will then have an opportunity to discuss this matter.

Mr. Dance: Is the Leader of the House prepared to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the issues raised about the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton) in Motion No. 5?

[That the matter of the style and title of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed be referred to the Committee of Privileges.]

Mr. Whitelaw: It is for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider whether it is prepared to look into the matter. However, I hope that, as soon as it is set up, the Committee will feel able to consider this question.

Mr. Dell: Has the Leader of the House read the Adjournment debate that took place last Tuesday on Cammell Laird and reports of statements subsequently stated to have been made in the Press? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation is taking on increasingly serious aspects? Will he ensure that the statement which was promised at the end of the Adjournment debate on Tuesday is made before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly look into the matter. I will represent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology that the right hon. Gentleman would like him to make a statement next week.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen my Motion No. 19—
[That, in the opinion of this House, the Standing Order which prevents under legitimate circumstances the names of hon. Members from being mentioned, that is to say the right hon. Member for Hexham as well as the hon. Member for Tynemouth in a Question to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 21st July referring to Major Johnson, in the interest of a constituent's grievance should be eliminated as it is in the interest of Parliament that a proper representation should be made when a departmental criticism is involved.]
which prevents me deploying the full case in support of a constituent of mine who has complained against decisions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government of the last Government? My constituent's appeal was dismissed on three occasions, and it was subsequently found that it was dismissed on the wrong law. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I should like to have included my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, who also had an interest in this case? Because the Standing Order prevents me doing so, I cannot properly deploy my constituent's case. Will my right hon. Friend take action?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will have noticed the Motion relating to the Select Committee on Procedure in the Order Paper today. If the House approves that Motion, the Committee may consider this matter, if it thinks fit.

Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House said a few minutes ago that he intended to refer to the Select Committee on Privilege matters concerning Members of Parliament in gaol, and particularly the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Are we, in this Parliament, to have consideration of the Select Committee's Report on the law of privilege? It seems that the reference we now have could be coloured by consideration of the wider issues.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I know of the interest which he, and particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have in the matter. Yes, I should certainly hope that we will do this.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Cormack: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 20 which has now been signed by 99 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to repeal that part of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1969, which abolished the property qualification for election to membership of a local authority in England and Wales so that local authorities can return to a


position whereby candidates who are genuinely involved in the affairs of the community are not excluded for unnecessary reasons from serving it in local government.]
In view of the consequent disruption which could occur in many local authorities next May if this is not implemented, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give the matter his early and earnest consideration?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will probably have noted that, in answer to a Question on 9th July, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was considering this matter urgently and would inform the House of his conclusion before the recess.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for giving him a wrong name. I am trying to learn the faces of 159 Maidens.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Foreign Secretary intends to make his statement on the supplying of arms to South Africa? Will it be before the debate on Wednesday?
Secondly, have the Government got in mind to have an inquiry into the alleged leak last Tuesday of the Board of Trade's balance of payments figures?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, the answer is "Monday".
Concerning the second point, I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman and he will consider them.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Leader of the House intend to make an announcement next week about Standing Order No. 80? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what Standing Order No. 80 is, may I inform him that it is the Standing Order which enables the setting-up of the Estimates Committee at the beginning of every Session. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for advising me about Standing Order No. 80. Otherwise, my answer

might not have been as full as it will now be.
If the hon. Lady would do me the courtesy of looking at the remarks which I made in the debate on the Address, she would find that I then said that I wished to consider the whole question of Select Committees, which I definitely wish to see set up in some form, and that when I had come to a conclusion I would put proposals before the House in the form of a Green Paper and give the House an opportunity to debate them.

Sir G. Nabarro: As we are not to have a debate until the autumn on the promised Coal Industry Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Government Departments will now scrutinise price increases? May we, therefore, have a statement, before the House rises for the recess, on Lord Robens' proposals to increase the price of coal right across the board by 10 per cent. with all the inflationary consequences?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will note what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to a statement. I cannot even yet say when the House will definitely rise, so I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to a statement next week.

Mr. Ogden: The Leader of the House has been asked whether the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about coal prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there are applications before the Board of Trade for increases in the prices of fuel oil and derivatives? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make them the subject of the statement, too, if one is to be made about coal?

Mr. Whitelaw: For the record, what I said to my hon. Friend was that coal price increases concerned my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I will, of course, call his attention also to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Leader of the House indicate when we will have an opportunity to discuss the history-making report of the Select Committee which


recently inquired into the Bank of England?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say at this stage. I recognise that it is an important Report which the House will certainly wish to consider.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government is likely to be able to make a statement, before the House rises for the recess, about partly completed transactions involving the Land Commission?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly mention to my right hon. Friend what has been put to me. I cannot make a definite commitment about a statement next week, but I will certainly see what my right hon. Friend can do.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House indicate the form that the debate on the emergency powers will take on Monday? Will it be exempted business, will it be brought to a conclusion at 10 o'clock, or will there be further debates on the various Regulations?

Mr. Whitelaw: It will be a whole day's debate. Without notice, I cannot answer questions about it being exempted, but I think it is.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Home Secretary will be making a statement on his discussions tomorrow with the Minister of Home Affairs, Northern Ireland, on the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—which, from tomorrow, will presumably be within the Home Secretary's responsibility, which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it has not been hitherto?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that that necessarily follows from my answer, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will discuss the matter with the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs. I think that rather the opposite conclusion could be drawn. I understand—I said so in my original answer—that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland authorities. My right hon. Friend will discuss this matter with the Minister of Home Affairs. If, after that, he thinks it

necessary to make a statement he will do so, but I cannot give a commitment that he will.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When my right hon. Friend considers the future of Select Committees, will he bear in mind what I think was good and useful work done in the last Session by the Select Committee on Race Relations?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir, most certainly I shall.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman about the Government bringing in a Bill similar to the 1967 Coal Industry Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman could not spell out the precise nature of the legislation, may I ask whether there have been consultations with the appropriate miners unions, and whether the consultations took place in an amicable atmosphere?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I cannot anticipate the legislation. I must therefore ask the House to await it and ask hon. Members to put questions on the policy concerned to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. John Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, on the basis of normality, he ought to announce the date of the end of the Summer Recess? Is he aware that Parliament can always be recalled earlier? In the light of present answers that one is getting from Ministers, the impression is getting around that the Government are going into a permanent state of hibernation.

Mr. Whitelaw: If that is the impression given to the hon. Gentleman and others, I can only give him and them an absolute assurance that that is wholly false. As regards the announcement of the date of the end of the recess, I feel, and I felt that I carried the House with me at that moment, that when we are in an emergency situation it would be better to wait for a few days to see how things develop before giving that information, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate if, most unfortunately, emergency powers have to be renewed, that has to be done within a month, and the House would have to be recalled for that purpose.

Orders of the Day — MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am glad that the first Bill that I have moved in my new responsibility is this Measure, for two reasons: first, because it deals with a problem of great social importance and considerable urgency. Second, because moving it demonstrates that in dealing with this problem there is no major division of principle between the two sides of the House on party lines. We all have views on the problem, but the Bill I am introducing is virtually identical to that which was introduced by my predecessor in March of this year. There are one or two tiny detailed Amendments to the Schedule dealing with particular drugs. Apart from that, the Bill is identical to the previous one.
The Second Reading of the Bill in March was unopposed. It was given a general welcome by both sides of the House, though substantial points were raised for discussion in Committee. We therefore decided that it was right to reintroduce the Bill, first, because of the general welcome it received previously and, second, because of the importance and urgency of the problems involved.
We reserve the right to introduce Amendments at a later stage when we have had further time to consider the detailed matters involved in this legislation. A number of important points were discussed when the Bill was before the previous Parliament, and to some of these I shall refer during my remarks this afternoon. I do not foresee any great controversy of a party character on any Amendments which we may seek to introduce in due course.
I do not think it would be right for me to rehearse again in detail the arguments which were put before the House as recently as 25th March, but perhaps for the benefit of those hon. Members

who have recently joined us, I think the phrase is, I should say a few things about the need for the Bill, and its effects.
Broadly speaking, the main reason why the Bill is necessary is that the present law is unsatisfactory. It is fragmentary. There are many Acts of various kinds dealing with certain aspects of the problem which ought to be brought together in one Measure. The law is also inadequate. For example, the 1933 Act covers only sale or supply. The 1967 Act does not provide for control over the prescribing of all drugs liable to abuse, or reporting all forms of drug dependence. In addition, it is inflexible because, under present law, the Home Secretary cannot move as quickly as he would want to do, and should do, to deal with the rapidly changing picture both of drug availability and habits of addiction.
As the House is aware there are, regrettably, many changes and new developments in this field. All the time new drugs, powerful stimulants and powerful sedatives are being developed, and we must, therefore, be able to act rapidly and respond to the changing circumstances. This is the major justification upon which the Bill was passed when it was introduced in its previous form by my predecessor.
The purposes of the Bill are these: first, for the first time to distinguish sharply between unlawful possession on the one hand, and trafficking on the other, and several additional trafficking offences to take account of the widening range of these activities are created and penalties are made very severe, indeed. I am sure that it is in line with the general feeling of the House that trading in drugs merits the severest punishment, but, nevertheless, possession itself will remain a serious criminal offence.
Second, the Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to counter, without international consultation, any misuse that arises. In particular, he may at any time by Order in Council bring new substances under control and make any regulations he considers necesasry for the control of production, of supply and of possession. Third, it enables the Home Secretary to have powers to stamp out over-prescribing by banning practitioners from prescribing specific controlled drugs if it is established that they have been


prescribing irresponsibly. Fourth, it gives the Home Secretary power to demand information about the supply of controlled drugs by any pharmacist or practitioner if it appears to him that in that area there are special social problems caused by the extensive misuse of controlled drugs. Fifth, the Bill provides for the establishment of an Advisory Council and an Expert Committee on the misuse of drugs to assist in the preparation of controls and other counter measures.
As the House will observe, the Bill divides the various drugs into three classes in, on the whole, descending degrees of danger. Those in class A are the most dangerous, the second less dangerous and the third even less so, but all of them, in whichever class they fall, remain dangerous drugs whose possession, use and distribution should be regulated by law. Those are the main provisions of the Bill.
The House having heard the previous Measure put forward with great clarity by my predecessor, I do not think that I should weary hon. Members by rehearsing it all again, but there are one or two things I should like to say before commending the Bill to the House. My first comment is on the criticisms made in the earlier discussions on the Bill before the previous Parliament, either on Second Reading or in Committee. We are considering these very carefully in deciding whether to bring forward Amendments, and if so what Amendments, for the later stages. There are three points in particular to which I should like to refer. The first is the problem of cannabis and barbiturates. I shall say a word about cannabis later on. As the House is aware, barbiturates present a special problem of considerable difficulty, and I look forward very much to the report of the sub-committee of the Advisory Committee under Sir Edward Wayne who will be advising us on how to handle this problem.
The next point—because it is a broader one, it is possibly a little more difficult in terms of legislation—concerns the argument put forward by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that the approach under the

Bill is too negative. I see what is meant by that, and I understand very well the feeling behind it, but it is sometimes difficult to be as positive as one would wish in an Act of Parliament. We entirely accept that legislation, in itself, is not enough to deal with this problem. We must go further. We must seek answers to the question why the problem arises on this scale and in this form. We must see that action is taken in the related fields—the social and educational fields, and in further research. I shall consider whether, in the light of the previous discussions, any Amendments should be made in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council to take account of the need for a wider approach to the whole problem.
Then there is the problem of over-prescribing, which seems to be a very difficult and important one. It is clearly important, because I understand that the amounts involved in over-prescribing are serious. The problem is a substantial one and we must deal with it. On the other hand, the issues involved in restricting prescribing by doctors are themselves very serious ones. I understand that in the previous Parliament there was a wide interest in the possibility that the General Medical Council might take responsibility in this matter. I am happy to tell the House that I have had a letter from the President of the Council offering further talks with the Government on this subject, and I shall be happy to talk with the Council and the other professional bodies involved in these matters. I shall certainly lay the results before the House at the appropriate time.
These are the main issues. The House is pretty familiar with the Bill and with its purposes, and I have referred to the main points that I think we ought to deal with in considering Amendments at a later stage. Before I conclude I want to say a few things about my attitude to the problem of the misuse of drugs, which I come to quite fresh. I shall certainly look very carefully at all the reports of the Advisory Committee on cannabis, rehabilitation, the powers of search—a very important point—amphetamines, and L.S.D. I shall study those reports very closely.
But the basic problem is how far the community is entitled to interfere with the individual in the conduct of his own


life. It is the old problem of freedom under the law. This is being made all the more urgent by the way in which the whole quality and background of our lives together are being affected by the astounding speed of scientific development. This is a favourite theme of mine and I shall not weary the House for long with it. The pace of scientific discovery is bringing new dangers to mankind of a character which is not generally recognised. It is not merely the more obvious ones—the dangers of the atomic bomb or the pollution of the atmosphere—but the enormous discoveries of science in influencing men's minds and human behaviour, either through medicine or, in some cases, through surgery.
These growing possibilities will certainly call for more control, just as control over the environmental pollution problem will be required. But if more controls are needed they must be even more stringently justified if they are to be accepted. We must also recognise and accept that any controls that we impose must be fully appreciated by those concerned. In this connection the previous Home Secretary often stressed the importance of the generation gap and the need to ensure that we, in our generation, are fully understood, in terms of our motives and actions, by the younger generation that is succeeding us.
There are two things on which everyone can readily agree—first, that illicit trafficking in drugs should be dealt with with extreme severity, as the Bill provides, and, secondly, that the use of hard drugs is an appalling phenomenon of our society and we must set our faces completely against it.
But there remains a certain area of doubt for those who both believe in individual freedom and that the spreading use of drugs is dangerous to a high degree to individuals and to society as a whole. Freedom is in issue. It is deplorable to see people drinking themselves into cirrhosis or smoking themselves into lung cancer, but nobody proposes that either activity should be prohibited by law. There is an ethical consideration here, and it is relevant to the problem of cannabis.
I should like to give an example of what I mean by referring to a meeting

that I addressed some while ago at the London School of Economics. It was a meeting of the Conservative Association, which meant that many of those present were far from conservative. One young man said to me, "You like whisky. I like pot. Why can you have whisky while I cannot smoke pot? They are both mildly addictive, but they both do little harm when taken in small quantities. They both do great harm when taken in large quantities. Why is one prohibited and the other allowed? "The answer to that question we must get across to both sides with the greatest clarity.
I am convinced that we are right to maintain the attitude, in the Bill, that cannabis should be treated as a dangerous drug. To my mind the risks of doing otherwise are far too great, whatever the truth is about progress from one drug to another. I understand that more than 90 per cent. of those addicted to hard drugs started on cannabis. That is a fact that we cannot ignore. In any case, cannabis is not necessary. It seems a wholly unnecessary risk to take to treat this substance as anything other than a dangerous drug. But we must also recognise—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said in the previous Parliament—that we have not made our story about cannabis credible. We have only ourselves to blame for the fact that the public, and especially the younger members of the public, do not find this story a convincing one. I hope that together we may find the means of making the story a really convincing one.
That is surely one reason why the Bill is only part of the whole problem of drugs, and how to deal with them. We are dealing with a symptom of a deeply troubled society. The law, and the full rigour of the law, where necessary, is essential, but repression alone clearly is not enough. We must identify the reasons and causes for the phenomenon. In a time like this, when life should be so full of opportunities and challenges and possibility, what is the emptiness that draws so many young people towards the use of these drugs, substances and strange practices? It is not only the challenge of doing something illegal. Making something illegal sometimes causes it to be more attractive to some people. It is


not only a question of smoking in the shrubbery. There are deeper causes in our modern society which draws young people to this sort of consolation. I hope that this House, in the course of these discussions, can make some contribution to identifying these causes, so that we may be able to cure the problem.
That is the background against which I commend the Bill to the House. It is virtually identical with the Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. It is necessary because of the fragmented and unsatisfactory state of the law at present. Its purposes are clear—they are to deal with known abuses, particularly trafficking and over-prescribing. We shall consider deeply the question of any Amendments on the points that I have mentioned before the next stage of the Bill is reached. Above all, we recognise that this is a grievous social problem to which, by the Bill, we are making a contribution, but only a minor part of the total contribution required.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The House will not be surprised if I say that I agree with what the Home Secretary said. Indeed, as he said, with minor alteration he has taken over the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill—the Long Title, the Explanatory Memorandum, the Preamble, the Clauses, the Schedule, the offences and the penalties. The only difference that I can see is the names on the back, and if he had asked me, I should have been willing to have them remain the same.
This is a little symptomatic of the Government. They have taken over a piece of legislation from the previous Administration and introduced it as one of their earliest Measures. We are having a full day's debate on it; I do not quarrel with that, although we had a full day on it a short while ago. This confirms the impression which the country is getting that the Government are coasting along—waiting for problems to come and hit them while they are coasting.
The problems will certainly arrive, unless there is more evidence of mobility on the part of the Government. I understand this policy of masterly inactivity, but I hope that they will give some

impression of being in control of events from time to time, instead of just reacting to them. However, it is not for me to complain on this occasion that they should have chosen, as one of their first actions, when they had no legislation of their own, to produce, with modest praise to their predecessors, a Bill of the Labour Government. We shall certainly facilitate its passage on to the Statute Book.
I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about barbiturates and he is wise to await the report which he will get. This will be one of the most difficult tasks to handle in this matter. The legislation is not enough; of course he is right there. I have said so, but one has to go on saying so, as I am sure he has discovered, both in order to get other things than legislation done and also to impress the liberal Press, who other wise will say that he made a very bad speech. He is right about over-prescribing, of course: this is certainly one of the difficulties.
I was worried by what the Home Secretary said about cannabis and I wonder whether he is right about people's attitudes when he gives approval to what the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said in the last Parliament—that we have not made our story credible about cannabis to the younger members of the public. I did not believe it when the right hon. Gentleman said it, and I do not believe it now. I advise the Home Secretary to think carefully about this.
It is not my experience that the younger members of the public are in favour of smoking "pot". It is my experience that a small and very articulate group, who have managed to corner the Press and a great deal of the public media, express themselves in terms of a generation gap, and say that we do not understand, but the plain truth is, as far as I know it and as far as the most recent market research that I have seen has gone, that over 90 per cent. of young people are in favour of stringent penalties against those who smoke "pot". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use his office to give credence to a view which I believe is misplaced, so far as the overwhelming majority of young people are concerned.
I know the groups who say, "Smoking cannabis has a lot to be said for it.


Why should you interfere with our rights as individuals?". That is not the whole question, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to accept, without further tests, the view that young people as a whole take this view. I have no evidence for this indeed, my evidence is in the opposite sense.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I have very little to say, so I am grateful for an interruption.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: So I am assisting the right hon. Gentleman. Is he not rather misrepresenting the views of my right hon. Friends? Neither of them said that he thought that the younger generation was in favour of legalising cannabis. What they said was that the younger generation were extremely sceptical and cynical about the issue and the part that the law can play. That is a very different point.

Mr. Callaghan: Maybe it is a different point, but my observations remain the same. That is to say, I do not believe that this is true of the majority of young people. I believe that the overwhelming majority take the view which I have already expressed and that the evidence, such as it is, which exists bears that out. I have used the phrase that the Home Secretary used—that we have not made our story about cannabis credible to the younger members of the public. I think that that was the phrase. I do not accept that: I think that it is entirely untrue.
I believe that the younger members of the public accept the view which has been expressed in this House, namely, that the smoking of "pot" is a dangerous habit, that it can lead to addictive drugs and that it should be firmly discouraged and put down. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I hope that the Home Secretary will not, even unintentionally, begin to undermine that by any other kind of expression—

Mr. Maudling: I said absolutely clearly that I am convinced that we are right to treat cannabis under the Bill as a dangerous drug.

Mr. Callaghan: I fully understand. I was perhaps being carried a little further by the hon. Member for Chelmsford

(Mr. St. John-Stevas) who I know takes a different view.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: "Takes a different view"? Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No. The hon. Gentleman is a television pundit, but in this House he can sit down and listen to other people for more than a minute. I had to put up with the hon. Member when I was Minister: I do not have to suffer him any longer.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Wait and see.

Mr. Callaghan: Maybe if we get back to power I shall have to suffer him, but not until then. In the meantime, he can interrupt his own Front Bench.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for supplying us with the notes on the Clauses, which we had seen before, but which, for the most part, I had either not read or forgotten. They will be of assistance in our deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) will be winding up the debate. I ask the Home Secretary and the Minister of State to forgive me for not being here at the end of the debate, because I have to leave for Cardiff rather later. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford will not object to that.
I have said all I want to say about the principle of the Bill. What concerned me when I was at the Home Office was the changing nature and the speed of the spread of addiction, the devastating effects of the use of some of these drugs, into which people could so easily be attracted, and the fear of the unknown among those of us of an older generation. One of the most important powers in the Bill is the power to amend the Schedule. The penalties for pushers, in my view, are right, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to alter them.
The basic need is to try to disentangle the two types of drugs—these which are needed for medical purposes, where we must rely on the medical profession to exercise a sense of responsibility, and those which are not so needed. In the second case, we must reduce the availability of those drugs so far as we can and make it more difficult to get them. This is the root of the problem
Dr. Winstanley, the former Member for Cheadle, made an excellent speech on this matter during debates on the previous Bill. If the Home Secretary, among all the manifold responsibilities which have fallen on him, can spare the time, I suggest that he reads it. The speech, made from Dr. Winstanley's medical knowledge, was a valuable and helpful speech to me and I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman. What he told us was what was known, but he put it simply and clearly. He drew a distinction between the various types of medical and non-medical drugs. He thought that the amphetamines, which had no therapeutic necessity, were the most dangerous drugs in existence in that way and that they could be most easily dealt with. His contribution on that occasion makes me regret that he is not here to take part in this debate—and there is no party point in that remark.
I approve of the Bill, and so do the Opposition. If there are any alterations to be made in Committee, we shall look at them in a non-party sense. We might well introduce some Amendments ourselves. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan had some doubts about some points when he was in the Government. Now that he has the freedom of Opposition, perhaps he will raise them. I do not know whether I will support him or not; we shall have to wait and see what he says.
Lastly, the Home Secretary was asking some rather dangerous questions about the symptoms of sickness in our society. We know that he is a thoughtful man who understands these questions and thinks intelligently about them, but I beg him not to carry this research into sickness in our society too far. He might find that it began to challenge the whole of his political philosophy. What would happen then, when he decided to join the Labour Party?

4.50 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I think myself fortunate in having the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a Bill which has all-party backing and which is, therefore, removed from the field of political controversy. I hope that the House will extend to me its usual

tolerance and indulgence on these occasions, particularly as I happened to be born in North Norfolk, where, so we heard today from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), we are a very simple lot.
I ask the indulgence of the House because I shall speak from my own experience as a general practitioner in my constituency. I represent Norwich, South, part of a very proud and fine city which has managed to preserve much of its mediaeval and Georgian splendours from the onslaughts of the Victorian builder and the twentieth-century bulldozer. It has returned two Members continuously since 1272. I take the place of Mr. Christopher Norwood, whose independence of thought was admired in Norwich by people of very different political views and backgrounds.
Any city such as Norwich, which, with its fringe areas, has a population approaching 200,000, is no longer the tight little Georgian group it was 150 years ago. Norwich is an expanding city; it has become an industrial city and a commercial city. As it expands, the centre of the city becomes destroyed, and the people are thrown out to the outskirts. In a population of this size, there will be some who cannot cope with change, who cannot cope with the changes in society and the changes in their urban environment. Their family life will be split, and they will lose their extended family of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins.
It is from these people who cannot cope and who have an inadequate personality that the great pool of drug addicts is found. Such people are easy prey to any professional pusher or to any friend who will casually offer his spare heroin or physeptone. It is not yet a big problem proportionately—we must all bear that in mind—but, though comparatively small, it always has the menace of possible explosion, as it has exploded in America, into a problem of grave proportions.
Our regulations and laws in the past have been unable to cope with this problem. They have eased the situation in respect of one drug only to create a new situation. As the previous Home Secretary said, the situation changes constantly, day by day, and week by week. I was


surprised when I read his speech in the last Parliament to learn that he had known about the dangers of barbiturates only in recent months. In general practice we have known about them for the last couple of years, ever since Methedrine became difficult to come by.
Similarly, Mandrax seems to have taken people by surprise. Mandrax has not been mentioned yet today. It is a very intoxicating sleeping pill; one becomes very "high", very intoxicated, on it. This pill has been marketed for four, five or six years, and it immediately started to fall into the wrong hands. Recently, there has been a great increase in its vogue. I have seen people trying to inject Mandrax; they suffer a terrible infected arm. I have many patients who have taken it with alcohol or instead of alcohol as an intoxicating agent.
The dangers of Mandrax, both social and pharmacological, have been known for several years, and last year the Poisons Board took the unusual step of recommending its consideration by the Home Office because of its social implications. But it has taken a year up to now for the danger to be officially recognised by the Home Office.
That is an illustration of the need for this Bill, with its flexibility to meet a constantly changing situation. The scene is not the same from one week to the next. Only with a flexible Bill of this kind can we hope to start putting our laws in line with the situation.
I was surprised, too, when I read the last debate, to learn that the increase in LSD taking, "acid" taking, was not known among the general public or among the generality of right hon. and hon. Members. I find this extraordinary. Acid taking in a provincial city like Norwich has increased 100-fold, probably, in the last 18 months. I was reading last night an as-yet-unpublished paper by the man who is probably regarded as the most eminent in the field of addiction, a consultant psychiatrist. His paper extends to 8,000 words and devotes only 110 to the taking of acid. He gave his figure of the likely incidence in the population as one to five per 100,000. This shows not only how out of touch hon. Members may be but how out of touch one of the hierarchy in medicine is, for, just after reading that paper, I went to the Library

and saw in our local newspaper that there were five people yesterday on acid charges in various courts in Norwich. That is five people out of 200,000, yet the greatest expert on addiction in this country feels that in any year there are only one to five per 100,000. He could come to my surgery and, within a month, we could find him his five. I could take him round various clubs, coffee bars and ordinary bars in Norwich and find ten or 20 times that in an evening.
Acid taking is a big menace. In my view, it is the most dangerous drug we have, for two reasons: first, because it produces either temporary or permanent insanity, with schizophrenic breakdown, and second, because we might here have a causal relationship with the taking of "pot". The relationship between "pot" taking and heroin is a relationship within the social environment. It is none the less dangerous for that. I feel that the argument put forward by some experts about the similarity between the molecule of TCH, the derivative of cannabis, and the molecule of morphia is neither here nor there. Clinically, I do not think that it has any significance. But there may well be a relationship between hash taking and LSD taking.
Hash is a mild hallucinatory drug—which alcohol really is not—and LSD is a major hallucinatory drug. It seems reasonable to suppose not only that the same people move in the same circle but that there may well be a direct relationship.
Having given my unstinting approval to the Bill, I wish slightly to criticise its emphasis, and the emphasis in the debate last time, as well as, perhaps, today, on the hazard of the over-prescribing doctor. This problem could easily be solved if it were illegal for any doctor to charge for his prescription of various drugs. It is always said by social workers that the doctors who treat addicts are either saints or sinners. The sinners make large sums of money out of it. The saints, for a penny a day, undergo the worst ordeal by patient which any doctor can have. They do it for a penny a day, the capitation fee.
A doctor with a dozen or a couple of dozen addicts on his list suffers in every possible way. His sleep will be disturbed night after night. His surgeries


will be disturbed. He will lose the confidence of his colleagues because his patients will invariably be a nuisance wherever they go. There is no advantage to him at all. He is doing social work, and he is not being paid for it. These people are not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said, grey sheep. They are taking on a job because in a provincial city there is at the moment no treatment for the drug addict.
The old system was that they should be treated in out-patients' departments, or that in a big enough city there should be a special centre. That does not work, because the out-patients' department closes, but drug addiction is a 24-hoursa-day, seven-days-a-week matter. Therefore, at night and at weekends addicts are thrown back on to the general practitioner service. There are very few general practitioners who will take on that responsibility, and there is a danger that, after the Bill is passed, those very few will also stop. It is bad enough to have ordeal by patient; it would be worse to lose one's livelihood.
We must also be a little careful about sharp differentiation between the pusher and the taker. In my experience, the two often overlap. When the clever racketeer, the man at the top, is eventually caught by the police, he will probably have a couple of purple hearts on him and will be sentenced to three months' imprisonment at the magistrates' court. The next man down, the smalltime crook, the small-time housebreaker who can no longer climb over the back walls, will be found, when caught, with the "pot" all neatly labelled and wrapped up in silver paper ready for distribution, and he will get five years. The last group consists of the men who move in the sub-culture of the junkie and just share his prescription. This is where we come to the question of over-prescription, and it is where we may be able to do some good.
To quote the social workers, the saints amongst the junkie doctors do their best to avoid over-prescription at all times. It is very difficult, because one can never tell the dose someone will need. Where over-prescription is dangerous today is in the over-prescription of a drug which is practically becoming replaceable—the barbiturates. This is the new menace

coming up behind LSD. It is a menace which is reappearing, because it was a menace about 10 years ago.
Barbiturate over-prescription occurs constantly. It is done not just by a few grey or black doctors but by a great many doctors in all walks of life and all types of practice. They prescribe barbiturates as tranquillisers, though there are much better tranquillisers, and as sleeping pills, though there are much better forms of getting a night's rest. The problem of insomnia can be gone into much more carefully, and the doctor can use a much more narrow-spectrum drug to achieve the night's rest. But that is not always done, and the easy way out is to give someone sodium amytal gr.3. The general practitioner gives 100 so that the patient does not come back for a month. This is the sort of over-prescription we must get rid of. Barbiturate over-prescription is the big problem coming up in the future. We must have closer and tighter control right across the spectrum of doctors—not just a few junkie doctors.
I have not mentioned the constructive points which we need and which must be put forward. One is education. There must be more and more education on the hazards of drug addiction, particularly as regards acid. Second, we must remember that we need improved social conditions. Where there are poor social conditions there is addiction. Fifty-two per cent. of hard-drug addicts have been deprived of one or other true parent for more than two years, and 34 per cent. have been deprived of both parents for two or more years. When talking to them, we always hear the same story of the shattered home, the absent father.
I have just one other small point. We have included a large number of cough medicines in the Bill. I do not know whether The House realises that any prep-school matron or old people's home warden who hands out cough medicine in future will be liable to seven years in gaol, and so will the headmaster.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), I, too, ask the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not immediately discuss what he just said.
The occasion of one's maiden speech in this House is obviously symbolic. I am not sure what is symbolises—perhaps the transition from boyhood to manhood, a sort of political key of the door. Perhaps it marks the transition from amateur to professional status as a politician. Perhaps, even, it marks a loss of political innocence. Whatever it symbolises, it is certainly a nerve-wracking tribal initiation ceremony which still awaits record by one of our latter-day sociologists. I, like other new Members, find it something of an ordeal.
I represent Walthamstow, West, and do so with pride and humility. I do so with pride, because the people of my constituency are the most friendly and heartwarming that I could wish to meet and represent. They have made me, a foreigner from a few miles away, extremely welcome. They also have a long record of devoted public service, a record of electing progressive local authorities and representatives to speak up for them in the assemblies of the nation. This, too, makes me feel extremely proud.
At the same time, I feel very humble about the rôle I have undertaken, because in Walthamstow, West there is a long tradition of very fine constituency Members of Parliament, some of whom in recent years have given their lives to the service of their constituents, dying in office. If I merely mention Mr. Ted Redhead, hon. Members who knew him will know exactly what I mean. He set a standard of conduct as constituency Member which I shall find it very difficult to live up to. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Fred Silvester, did his best, as I shall do my best, to establish the same sort of reputation, but the sort of reputation which Mr. Ted Redhead had in the House and his constituency will perhaps take a decade or more to establish, if I am lucky enough to enjoy the confidence of the electorate that long.
The Bill is very important. As a politician, I think that it is up to us to establish that politics is a meaningful activity which bears some relevance to the concerns of ordinary people, including young people. We need a clear-thinking logical approach to social problems. I am not certain that the Bill embodies clarity of thought and logic. I support it, but I have three criticisms.
First, the Bill is, as I think the Home Secretary implied, rather hypocritical. It attacks socially unacceptable drugs but does nothing about socially acceptable drugs. It attacks the drugs of young people, but does nothing about the drugs of middle-aged and elderly people. When looking through Schedule 2, I thought that something called "nicodicodine" might have been a misprint for "nicotine", but I understand that there is no intention of doing anything about that. If there is a distinction to be made between drugs, it should be between drugs which are a danger to health and those which are not, but the Bill does not make that distinction.
My second criticism is that it does nothing about the prevention of drug addiction. We must first realise that it is necessary to educate parents and, even more important, local authorities about the perils of drug addiction. A number of local authorities, particularly in urban districts, have their heads in the sand about the existence of a drugs problem locally. There are many instances, certainly in my area of Waltham Forest. After hearing learned aldermen of the district saying, "We have no drugs problems," some young reporters on the local newspaper proved the following week that it was possible to go to a teenagers' café and buy a small piece of LSD on a piece of paper for 2s. 6d. with no trouble at all. There is clearly a drugs problem, but we shall not start to tackle it until everyone in the country is aware that the problem exists, and this is very much a matter for parents and local authorities as well as the House of Commons.
Secondly, we need to do some research into why people take drugs. But it is true that there are some deficient personalities, I see them myself, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), I have the dubious distinction of living at Piccadilly Circus, which is the centre of the illegal drug trade. The type of people one sees there, the drug addicts, are undoubtedly the lowest of the low and probably have deficient personalities, as may be seen from what they say, the way in which they congregate and behave and so on. But that is only a small part of the problem of drug addiction.
Many people, an increasing number, take drugs to express a protest, to express rejection of the values of the society in which they find themselves—for example, our addiction to materialism, to success, to money and so on. They find that their parents have not gained satisfaction from their worship of these gods and they prefer to live for kicks, to get their pleasures as they can, from drugs if necessary, and not to slave all their lives for a pension at the age of 65, if they are lucky enough to live to get it. That is the second reason why people take drugs.
There is a third reason. Some take drugs because they have failed to live up to the standards of our society; they have failed in our rat race. They therefore want to take drugs because they are inadequate or insecure, or are under a certain degree of social strain. Here, again, the remedy is in our own hands.
Finally, there is a reason for drug addiction about which the House will be able to do nothing. There is a number—and I suspect that it is an increasing number—of fairly intellectual young people who take drugs for experimentation, for the kicks that it gives them, for so-called heightened perceptions. This is all a load of absolute rubbish, but at the same time it is happening in America and I suspect that, as with so many other aspects of our society, what is happening in America is likely to happen here, unless we do something about it.
We should recognise the limits of legislation. The need—and that is why I am on this side of the House—is to effect a radical change in our society, in social structures and institutions, so that people are not condemned as failures at any point of their existence as human beings, so that they may at all times fulfil their potentialities and lead truly creative lives. Until we have established that sort of society, drug addiction will become an increasingly serious problem.
My third criticism is that, unfortunately, I suspect that the Bill is likely to increase crime. We shall make drugs for the addict scarcer and therefore push up the black market price for drugs. The addict will have three choices. He may give up drugs, but we all agree that that is most unlikely. He may turn to alternatives, but the Bill makes provision in time for cracking down on those alternatives.

Finally, he may continue addiction and buy drugs at higher black market prices.
What has happened in the United States may happen here as the drug supply dries up and drugs become more expensive. Drug addicts are not normally criminal types in the generally accepted sense of the word, but they are likely to turn to petty and violent crime in order to obtain the money which they will need to buy drugs on the black market. At the moment, we do not have that problem. What we have in the area of Piccadilly Circus is persistent begging for money to buy drugs, although different excuses are given. It is begging on a fairly substantial scale and I am sure that nothing can be done about it. But begging for 2s. is one thing and finding £s and £s to get a daily drug supply is entirely a different matter. I strongly suspect that if we are not careful, we shall see a rise in petty crime as a result of making drugs scarcer.
I reiterate that I support the Bill with reservations, but it is only a tentative first step which the House is taking in tackling what will become an increasingly widespread and serious social problem.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Havers: I observe with pleasure the conventions of a maiden speech. I should like to speak briefly of my constituency, famous as the home of one of the greatest sports enjoyed by so many and host to so many of the finest tennis players in the world. It is also one of the most beautiful boroughs in London, where even the smallest garden is attractively kept. It is a friendly and hospitable constituency which has made available some of its loveliest land to neighbouring councils for old people's homes. I am proud to be its representative here.
The second convention which I observe with pleasure is to refer to my predecessor, Sir Cyril Black. Sir Cyril will always be remembered in the House for his qualities of courage and total integrity. He was always prepared fearlessly to support minority views, and the yardstick of his reputation and character may be demonstrated by the fact that he numbered among his many friends those who opposed many of his campaigns. I feel a sense of inadequacy as


his successor, but I shall always be grateful for the kindness and support which he has given to me since I was chosen to replace him. He was, I am told, a good House of Commons man, and his retirement will be a great loss to the House, and we wish him well for the future.
In a maiden speech, I should not spend a great deal of time on the Bill, but there are two Clauses which as a matter of principle I do not like in their present form. Clause 28 shifts the burden of proof in certain cases. There seems to be no reason why the rule which has existed for so many centuries should be changed. It is a good rule. It is a rule of which every jury is reminded—"He who brings the charge must prove it". I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reconsider whether this change should be maintained.
My principal objection to the Bill concerns Clause 25 where one finds yet again the provision that no prosecution shall be taken before quarter sessions or assizes except at the election of the defendant, or if the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been obtained. I do not know why that provision is included. With practically every ordinary criminal offence carrying sufficient sentence if necessary to justify the matter going to a higher court, the prosecution has the right to elect to ask for the case to be tried by a higher court. As the Bill stands, a case may go to a higher court only at the election of the defendant.
That means that a man may be charged with a number of serious criminal offences under the Bill carrying as much as 14 years apiece and yet only by his choice can he be put at risk for them. Otherwise, he remains in the magistrates' court where the total maximum sentence which may be imposed is 12 months. Even if in the course of the hearing, as may happen in a number of cases, the magistrates take the view that it is more serious than they had originally understood it to be and ought to go to assizes or quarter sessions, they will have no power to order it to do so.
The ordinary rule should apply. Over the past few years too much of the discretion of magistrates has been taken from them as to the way in which they conduct their courts and the sentences

they give. This begins to be yet another example of that and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter when the Bill goes into Committee.
I thank the House for its indulgence.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I enter this debate with no particular knowledge of medical or legal science, unlike other hon. Members who also have made their maiden speeches, but I can speak as the representative of a very large constituency which contains a good deal of economic value and not a little social wisdom.
The Rother Valley constituency was created in 1918. From then until the recent General Election it was represented by three men, each of whom worked in the pits before his election. My predecessor, David Griffiths, served in this House throughout a quarter of a century, making a contribution in many ways, not least by his work on the War Graves Commission.
I do not regard my election as a great departure from the traditional interest of my constituency. My connection with the area is close and real, close by virtue of origin and residence and real by virtue of my previous public service and my occupation. The few people whom I taught were largely from miners' homes, like myself.
Coal mining is our most important industry and must remain so, because the coal that we extract in Rother Valley is, perhaps, the best in Europe. Steel is also a very important part of our economy, employing many of my electors. Ours is, therefore, an area with the normal traditional heritage of steel and mining towns, areas with a history of risk and deprivation but areas which possess a sense of domestic responsibility and good neighbourliness. In that sort of atmosphere it is very difficult for the extremes of addiction and vice to proliferate.
Rother Valley is a county constituency composed of many small towns and villages. Some of those villages have grown quickly in recent years because many people are moving into the country, into our agricultural areas, from the congestion of neighbouring and more


densely-populated larger centres of population in the towns and cities around.
It may be that that movement into the country from the urban areas is not an irrelevant point to make in a debate on the subject which is before us this afternoon. That movement to the country is certainly one of the reasons why I have such a large electorate, which the Boundary Commissioners appear to have ignored, and an electorate about which I do not complain. I certainly do not make any complaint about the majority.
Some hon. Members may regard my sort of mining and steel area as a dirty and derelict area full of people who are rough and inarticulate. I would never claim that we completely lack roughness and inarticulation, but I believe that in our sort of area we have the sense of responsibility and the identification of people with their neighbours to an extent which means that people are not aimless and have not lost their identity, which seems to be a problem in many of our large cities. The problem of this loss of relationship among people may be one of the relevant aspects in the severe problem of the misuse of drugs.
Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I support the Bill in broad terms. It is certainly necessary that heavier penalties should be applied for drug trafficking. I think, however, that far too many people take an extremely superficial view of a problem of this nature. They read in a newspaper a sensational report of an individual tragedy and their automatic response seems to lead them to utter a general condemnation of young people. As a teacher, I have a long and recent connection with young people and I find that it is far too easy and facile to issue those general condemnations of the young. People in society should realise that young people will live up to the labels that are given to them, that they will live up to the ideas of society about them and that they are very much as society creates them. They may well have more opportunity today than they have ever had before, but they face much more complex pressures than any previous generation has ever faced.
In the Whitsuntide Adjournment debate introduced by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), to which reference

has been made, the then Sir Edward Boyle referred to the rôle of schools in society. In particular relationship to this problem, the rôle of the school is extremely important. It should, however, be realised that the influence of the school is, perhaps, less than the influence of the opposing forces in our society and somewhat less, perhaps, than the influence of home. As one hon. Member pointed out, the influence of home is much more unsatisfactory than most of us would desire. Figures have been given which show that the drug addict is much more likely to come from a broken home than to be a youngster who is active in his youth club, at school or in voluntary service at home or overseas.
As well as the influence of home, there is the dreadful influence of society within education, with its insistence on competition, much of which is completely unnecessary. We place great pleasure on our young people to compete. We insist upon their striving to win. We expect them to pass an 11-plus examination which is unnecessary, we expect them to get more O-levels than the rest and then place upon them the pressures of struggling to get a university place and all the competition which exists in our society and which to a very large extent is unnecessary.
It may well be that as a result of that competition a socially selective élite may emerge, and to a very real extent it is an arrogant élite. In addition to that élite, however, there are created social casualties, individuals who feel inferior when no individual should and individuals who choose to opt out from the society in which they feel that they have failed. It is from these individuals who wish to opt out, who have not realised that this is impossible, that the ranks of the drug addicts are filled.
Unlike many hon. Members, I have not spent much time in London during the last 10 or 15 years. I have read repeatedly that it is supposed to be a gay and swinging city. I suppose that there is in this city a rather tawdry gaiety and I cannot claim to understand what the word "swinging" means. As a schoolmaster in South Yorkshire for a considerable time, however, the only comment that I would make on that is that I am


rather amazed that the incidence of insanity, crime, addiction and the rest is not greater when people are packed in the sort of areas in which many millions of people are compelled to live in Britain today. Therefore, if we are to resolve the problems of drug addiction, it becomes vital for us to be concerned with housing, education and general social provision and to realise that the problem cannot be divorced from the wider social aspects generally.
Many of my constituents who have, perhaps, little connection with young people or with drug addiction are saying today that the permissive society has become quite permissive enough. I do not agree with them in entirety but I believe that while freedom is vital, we nevertheless cannot allow our young people to have that amount of freedom in which they may easily be led into perdition. For this reason, it is vital that the squalid creatures who peddle destruction to the young, and sometimes the very young indeed, should be treated with all the severity that is proposed in the Bill.
At the same time, we have to remember that the sentences proposed in the Bill for addicts are not the answer, that the addicts who are imprisoned need much more help than the Bill may propose and far more help than the nightly clang of a cell door, which will be their fate if the Bill is passed. A prison sentence may be deserved but help should be given.
If we are properly to cater for the problem of drug addiction, it seems to me to be essential that in addition to the deterrent there should be provision for the complaint; and that if we are to find the cure we have to look for the cause, which may lie much more deeply in society than many people in our community expect.
We may by the Bill reduce the sale of drugs, we may reduce the measure of addiction, but as one with long experience of young people I feel that we may be too hopeful and expecting too much from the Bill, because the causes of the complaint with which it attempts to deal lie very deep in the roots of our society.
I am conscious that my first contribution to debate may have been rather

pedestrian. I cannot even pronounce, as other Members have been able to pronounce, the names of all the listed drugs mentioned in the Bill. I am conscious, too, that my maiden speech may not have been as loud or dramatic as some which the House has already heard in this Parliament. Perhaps the dull nature of my speech can be attributed to the fact that I am a South Yorkshireman, and we are not generally excitable or mercurial in South Yorkshire; our regional temperament is sound. I hope that our temperament is as sound as the stone of this Palace, which was quarried in my constituency. I support the Bill as one stone in the social fabric. It is a necessary stone, but many more need to be laid.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on his speech. It would be impertinent of me to refer generally to the clutch of maiden speeches to which we have listened today, but I think that they have collectively injected a good deal of common sense into this subject which some of us have been discussing for some time. The hon. Gentleman will probably be gladder that his speech is over than those of us who had the pleasure of listening to it.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I take the view that the Bill has been reintroduced at the right time and in the right way. The right hon. Gentleman was very critical of the Bill returning in its previous form and made some observations on that account. I think that the Home Secretary has done right to bring it back quickly and unchanged. In view of comments made by new as well as experienced Members and some earlier criticisms, my right hon. Friend can use the breathing space before the House returns in the autumn to make needy changes. That seems to me an eminently sensible way of going about this Measure. Most of the changes which we shall want to make should be made in Committee; they are not to be argued here. Without going into detail, I wish to indicate some areas—and they have been touched on by maiden speakers—about which I think the Home Secretary would be wise to think again.
We should define more clearly what we are trying to do. The Home Secretary said that to him the problem was how far the community should interfere with the freedom of the individual. That is right. But it is also a question of how far the community is prepared to look after its own health. This is basically a community problem. I regard the Bill as a transitional stage. I hope that we shall reach the point at which we do not have to rely on the law as heavily as we do now. The main object must be to check drug abuse, as with other epidemics, by public health education. That will call for a major effort for which we are ill prepared. The sooner we prepare for it the better.
We should look at the Bill and visualise ways in which it can perhaps strengthen the effort which will have to be made, not simply by law-makers or the Home Office but by the community. In this chemically-infested world, our society must learn to live without doing itself too much harm. That must be the long-term objective. America has taken a very long time to learn the importance of the community contribution. I hope that, by shorter cuts, we shall reach the right answer sooner and realise how much the law must be supplemented by work at community level.
An important decision will have to be made before the Bill comes back to the House in the small but dangerous field of addiction—and by "addiction" I mean everyone who is on the "needle", whether heroin or anything else. In 1967 we rejected the idea of compulsory treatment, and I think that many doctors reject it now. Short of that, I am sure that we shall have to tighten up our arrangements; they are not working out. This is an infectious and dangerous area which is not being reduced.
The Home Office figures, such as they are, for notified addicts are not strictly reliable because many cases of people who are on the "needle" have not been notified and therefore we do not know how many are suffering from this form of addiction. We must look again at a system which from the start gave me misgivings, namely, the State maintenance of addicts. I do not want to disparage

the treatment centres, which have done a hard job as well as they could. But they have not reduced the number of addicts. All that they have done in some places is to substitute methadon addicts for heroin addicts. I hope that the Home Secretary will take searching medical advice on this so-called cure because it is time that we considered it very closely. We should consider whether the Mental Health Act contains the means to put some of these people within a firmer framework.
I was greatly encouraged to hear what the Home Secretary said about forthcoming talks with the General Medical Council. It is crucial that these talks succeed. They stand a better chance of succeeding if the Government and the medical profession accept the nature of the problem. It was brilliantly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who, if I may say so without impertinence, made a singularly well-informed speech from the medical standpoint. Most of us would agree with what he said.
At the time of the Brain Report and of the 1967 Act, we appeared to be taking action to stop a few black sheep among doctors running amok. That is the basis of part of the Bill. I wish that I thought it was the main problem. I have spoken—and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South referred to my remark—about grey sheep in rather larger numbers. I accept his amendment. To the grey sheep in the profession who are causing difficulty we should add what must be described as the willing victims of local circumstances—that is, doctors who have been drawn into this problem and who are doing their best but are not making much contribution to its ultimate solution.
To be specific, many addicts have been injecting barbiturates. They were not prescribed, as methamphetamine was prescribed in the earlier craze, by a handful of doctors; they were prescribed by many doctors. Did the doctors prescribing barbiturates to those who inject them know for whom they were prescribing? If so, some awkard questions could be asked. If they did not, even more awkward questions, in one sense, could be asked.
The Advisory Sub-Committee is to look into the question of barbiturates and I hope that we shall have some answers in time for the final stages of the Bill. It is, however, very disturbing that a breakdown of the 15 to 17 million barbiturate prescriptions given every year shows that there is an average of 80 tablets per prescription. Why? I suspect that the answer partly is the prescription charge—and hon. Members opposite are entitled to make what they like of that, but I want to deal with the facts. A quantity of 100 a time saves money. This is not necessarily a reflection on the prescription charges but it is a reflection on medical practice. All I would assert is that an average of 80 barbiturate tablets a time is too many and is one cause of the large overspill of tablets now in circulation and being abused.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate, however, that it is possible to prescribe barbiturates in very small strengths, and that, if a doctor wishes to have someone on a barbiturate without giving him large quantities to take per day, he can prescribe them in a very minor strength, which would necessitate him giving prescriptions for 100 tablets?

Mr. Deedes: I accept this, but the hon. Gentleman will accept in his turn, I think, that some prescriptions are given out which are not covered by that proviso; it is those which cause me anxiety. In a sentence, a great deal of careless prescribing has gone on here, and we all know it. The conduct of many doctors in respect of dangerous drugs leaves a great deal to be desired.
Following on what my right hon. Friend said, many of us believe that the medical profession must take a share of responsibility. They have power, through the General Medical Council and its disciplinary committee, and I do not believe that this should all be left to Government, with sponsored tribunals and the kind of official investigation proposed in the Bill. The reluctance of the General Medical Council—perhaps at the risk of tedious repetition I might repeat what I have said before—to share responsibility here drew the last Government, as it will draw the present

Government if these talks do not succeed, into designing an apparatus which would steadily encroach on doctors' right to prescribe. Yesterday it was heroin, today it is amphetamines, and tomorrow it will be barbiturates. It is a bad principle and unworkable in practice. I accept that the medical profession cannot do it all, but what I insist is that we here should not try to do it all. We should move towards and not away from professional self-regulation. That is why I was so glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take another look at the penalty Clauses. In the first place—here I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—he will find this distinction between pushing and possession very difficult in practice. There is a distinction between smuggling large quantities of drugs into this country, usually cannabis, and possessing small quantities. Beyond this, it will be hard to establish when those in possession are proselytising and when they are not.
On the penalty clause I would add only this reflection. Could not the Home Secretary consider this? Why, in logic or in justice, should someone selling small quantities of drugs be liable for a heavy penalty, perhaps as much as 14 years, while someone who advocates irresponsibility to millions—it may well be via the media of television and so on—the use of this drug or that, often in an unanswered way, is regarded as entirely innocent? I am all for free speech, but some of the remarks which go unchallenged directed at young people on the subject of drugs make a major contribution to our problems.
In reality, of course, the crux is not what the law says, whatever the Bill does, but how the courts apply the law. The courts are as confused about the hierarchy of drugs as are most of us. Judges and magistrates will need a better brief. This is where the sphere of public education should begin. On balance, I think that the police know most. I have become increasingly impressed by the knowledge of policemen, particularly in provincial forces, who are making a special study of this and doing their best, not only in the light of their own responsibilities but as a social agency, to


deal with young people caught up in this problem in towns. It is easier in the provinces than in London, but it is being done and tribute should be paid.
I do not dismiss the worries of the libertarians lightly. They have their anxieties. But we must distinguish carefully between the worries and anxieties of the libertarians and the determination of an influential minority to damage the police, to accuse the police of planting or, in another context, of bashing, beating up. This has become a habit in some quarters, both for those who are defending themselves against unanswerable charges and also for those who understand very well that undermining the public confidence in the police is a short cut to discrediting established order. I know that some think that, in the recent inquiry in which I had some part, we let the police off too lightly. We shall argue that at the proper time. Meanwhile, I think that the difficult job they are doing in this respect should be acknowledged by the House.
Much of this brings me to my last point. Their duties and our duties would be greatly eased if we could inculcate a more informed attitude about cannabis. I will not follow up the argument which arose out of a remark of mine between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Unlike much opinion here and in other parts of the world, I am not led by recent experience to take a more genial view of "pot"—quite otherwise. My reasons—again I must pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—are identical to those which he offered.
The drugs scene changes very quickly: fashions shift. In my view, circumstantial evidence today is strong that the area of principal danger now is and will remain for a long time the hallucinogens—by which I mean cannabis, LSD, and, in the background, S.T.P. The amount of cannabis being smoked today is unquestionably very large indeed. We cannot quantify it, but we cannot doubt that the habit is pervasive, perhaps more pervasive than we should like to think.
The police know very well that there is a big and profitable market here and that people are prepared increasingly to

take risks—as some evidence from Europe is showing us—to make what they can of that market. The use of LSD has also increased, partly with the advent of the LSD pill, which makes its consumption much easier than having to take it in liquid form on a lump of sugar.
These hallucinogens have strong attractions in certain circles. One danger is this. Some smoke "pot" because they say that it is a relaxation, but some use it for what they term self-discovery. When they are disappointed by the results, they can be easily induced to turn to the drug which has the closest affinity in that sense, namely LSD. I agree with what my hon. Friend said. It is not the "pot"-heroin syndrome, on which we have dwelt over-long and in which many of the young knew us to have been wrong, that we should worry about, but the "pot"-LSD connection, which is, I think, the principal danger now.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the young know us to be wrong about the "pot"-heroin syndrome, since this is still very much an open question?

Mr. Deedes: Perhaps I over-stated it, and I do not want to over-state the matter. I do not want to go back on my words about the case we make not being credible. Let me put it this way. There was a time, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, when we tried to impress on the young that those who smoked cannabis were in pretty close peril of turing over to heroin, that one would follow the other. It is true that, among a number of heroin takers, one will find a high proportion who have been on "pot". What the young know, of course, very well is that a large number of people have smoked "pot" but have never gone on to heroin. This is where our argument got itself into difficulties among young people, who argue about these things perhaps more logically and more closely than we may suspect. All I am saying is that, medically, the really dangerous condition is between "pot" and LSD much more than "pot" and heroin.

Mr. R. T. Paget: That is a very interesting point. As I understand it, with "pot" one gets a hallucinating effect only when one takes a large overdose. A minor use of it does


not have such effects. When one has a large overdose, it has a hallucinatory effect, with other very unpleasant symptoms which come from the overdose. I should not have thought that hallucination was likely to be attractive if it came only in a most uncomfortable and unhappy form.

Mr. Deedes: I think I shall be taking up the hon. and learned Gentleman's point in my next remarks. There are two misconceptions about "pot" and cannabis which ought to be cleared up. The first thing which is overlooked is the infinite variety of the potency of "pot". There is an enormously wide range in what one can smoke, and at one end of the range one gets one result and at the other end of the range one gets a quite different result. It depends, technically, on whether one is smoking resin or flowering leaf, and even then much depends upon the concentration in what one is smoking. People who talk about "pot" in a general way are talking nonsense. "Pot" is as variable as alcohol, and we all know the difference between a glass of sherry and neat alcohol.
The second point is crucial. It is the amount smoked. I know a doctor who thinks that people who are smoking twice a week are in danger. I am not qualified to say whether this is true or not, but certainly those who smoke the strongest mixture, nearly always the resin—and, as I understand it, it is the resin which is brought into this country in the largest quantities—those who smoke that hard, are in danger of becoming tomorrow's dropouts. Those are the people who will find themselves overcome by apathy and by other moods which will render them, to put it mildly, less useful citizens.

Mr. Paget: Both with alcohol and "pot". if we get seriously drunk upon it, then, for nearly all of us, it is a very unpleasant state. Those who do not find it an unpleasant state, whether from alcohol or "pot", are in real trouble.

Mr. Deedes: That is a rational argument, but we are not dealing with rational people, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the same thing can be said with far greater emphasis about the effect of heroin. The first dose is often quite horrible yet those who experience

heroin derive great euphoria from the result.
However, the point which I want to stress is that if we increase the number of smokers we shall increase the number of hard users. Thus we should be careful about accepting a more liberal attitude than we have, for hard users are not only of harm to themselves but eventually are a harm to our society.
Although I like the Bill I doubt whether we shall achieve our purpose by it alone. Its prime object is to restrict supplies. That is the prime object of the Bill. I think it was the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) who pointed out that if we restrict supplies we create a market, and a smaller market. A smaller market means higher prices and so more profit to those engaged in this traffic. So we may increase our problem.
The Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Education and Science must get down to the framework of public health education. I have here some recent publications from America on these lines, "How to run a community system", "How to speak in public on drugs" and others. This is the approach we ought to take up, and at once. The Home Secretary may say that this could be done outside the framework of the Bill. Perhaps some of it can, but in addition to the agencies envisaged in the Bill we may need an agency for the stimulation of information and education. This is a public—and I stress "public"—health problem, and we should encourage by every means the public to share it and to take responsibility for it, and we should give them the means of doing so.

5.54 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made a very much tougher speech tonight than he did in March when we had the Second Reading of the previous Bill, a very much more abrasive speech, and I wonder what accounts for the change in tone. In March, the right hon. Gentleman had his criticisms about the Bill—yes, indeed; but he felt that the Bill dwelt heavily on powers and penalties on that occasion and dealt too little with the people involved. While he said some very tough things


about "pot" and the people who smoke "pot", he reminded us, in these terms, that
America has had Draconian penalties for the misuse of dangerous drugs—heroin, marijuana, the lot—and she has tried hard to enforce them, yet abuse in America has spread like an oil fire in a timber shed, and more particularly in the last year or two."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1462.]
I think, therefore, that we ought to take what the right hon. Gentleman said today with a few pinches of salt, because apparently now that he sits on that side of the House he is rather less conciliatory to the delinquent young, the misguided young, than when he sat on this side of the House.
One needs to approach this matter with a fair amount of caution and a fair amount of humility. Certainly we do not know enough about the smoking of marijuana. The Wootton Report indicates that we need to know a great deal more, and I endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the need for more research into why people are motivated and urged into taking drugs, why they do what they do, why they turn to a particular kind of drug, and what it is which compels them to seek this prop to help them to deal with the problems of everyday life.
Certainly I endorse what has been said in some of the excellent maiden speeches made here this afternoon, that we have not arrived at the American situation—God forbid that we should—in which deaths of teenagers from heroin addiction are occurring every day, and in which, in New York alone, about 224 teenagers died in 1969, the youngest being a negro boy of 12. This is a horrifying situation and one which we must do everything we can to prevent from occurring here.
I should like, if I may, to congratulate the maiden speakers we have heard this afternoon. They have been the most able speeches and the best bunch of maiden speeches I have heard in the House for some time. This is the first occasion on which I have listened to so many maiden speakers all in one day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who spoke with great experience as a doctor, and I am sure that we shall look forward very much to hearing his expert views on many subjects in

future. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. West (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). They were excellent speeches. We shall look forward to hearing all these speakers again in due course.
There is just one point I should like to take up with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West. He was talking about the steps which drug addicts take to get the supplies which they need or to get the money to buy the drugs which they need, and he rather implied that the crimes which we have experienced because of these drives and urges were rather small, rather petty. Those of us who were concerned with the previous Bill and who served on the Committee on that Bill have been concerned with the increase in crime from the desire to get the help of drugs or to get the money to buy drugs, and we were concerned that that was a main motivation. We have been concerned with the crimes of violence, with the crimes of breaking into chemists' premises and manufacturing druggists' premises, too. They arose from this overwhelming desire to acquire drugs or the means of acquiring them. This is one reason why the previous Bill was introduced by my right hon. Friend and why the Home Secretary is now introducing this Bill.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford that we should educate young people, parents and teachers to recognise the signs of drug addiction. Unfortunately the Bill does not deal with this problem. We urged the previous Home Secretary and the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science to provide the guidance needed by teachers. I know that a good deal has been done, but the booklet which has been produced is most inadequate and I urge the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see that more energetic and authoritative guidance is given to teachers so that they in turn can pass it on to parents. Many parents do not realise that their children are taking drugs until it is too late and they are within a short period of death from drug addiction.
Prescription charges have led to a certain amount of over-prescribing by members of the medical profession. It is easier for the doctor if the patient does not have to visit him so frequently, and the patient also saves money. Many of my hon. Friends foresaw this danger when it was proposed to reintroduce prescription charges.
The Bill is deficient in the amount of encouragement it gives for research into the motivations of drug addiction. The sum mentioned in the Bill is inadequate for this purpose. I hope that the results of the research instituted by my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary will soon be available and that it will shed more light on the reasons why young people turn to drugs. Drug addiction is a problem of young people under 25, and the starting age seems to be getting lower. There are known cases of very young school children experimenting with drugs. That is a terrifying development.
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is to have discussions with representatives of the medical profession to see whether they can put their own house in order. If, as is said, there are abuses under the Abortion Act, it is for the medical profession to put its house in order, and the same is true of drug prescribing and addiction.
The medical profession could do without amphetamines. They are unnecessary in therapeutic practice. Sweden has banned amphetamines from medical prescription except for narcolepsy, which is very rare. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put this suggestion to the medical profession. I do not agree with what the right hon. Member for Ashford said about the connection between cannabis and other drugs such as heroin. I think that the link is much closer between amphetamines and heroin, and this has been shown by research to be so. The removal of amphetamines would, therefore, have a valuable effect.
Treatment is an urgent problem which lies fairly and squarely on the medical profession. Our difficulty is that there is no universal treatment for drug addiction but many different ideas being pursued in many different areas. The time is long past when the Royal Colleges could have given thought to the treatment

of drug addiction and could have set up a standing conference to pool experience, resources and ideas. That would have enabled the medical profession to have had a unified approach to the treatment of drug addicts.
We must consider what is to happen to addicts after treatment. I am absolutely opposed to sending drug addicts to prison, where neither facilities nor medical manpower are available. Drug addicts are damaged people who need medical treatment by psychologists and psychiatric social workers, and sending them to prison will not help them. Once drug addicts have received treatment they are sent out in the same way as prisoners are sent out of prisons. They go back to the environment from whence they came, to the same contacts, the same inadequate family, and perhaps to a divided home. They go back to precisely the environment which led them to take drugs in the first place and back to the contacts from whom they were able to acquire drugs. There is an inescapable need to provide the "half-way house" accommodation which is needed for prisoners and just as urgently needed for drug addicts. We need far more hostel accommodation, with trained and sympathetic people in charge, to provide a sheltered environment for a period until addicts are able to fend for themselves and to face their every-day problems.
The Home Secretary will need to try very hard to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him more money for his Department, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when Home Secretary, sought to persuade the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is often a losing battle, but those of us who are concerned with this whole area of activity will support the right hon. Gentleman to the hilt in any endeavours which are made to this end.
There is still a great deal to do in matters which go rather beyond the bounds of the Bill. We shall try in Committee to improve the Bill so as to make it stronger and to give the Home Secretary rather more authority and power. I support those who take the view that the penalties for drug pushers should be even tougher than is indicated in the Bill.


I appreciate that it is difficult to distinguish the pushers from the users of drugs. There is considerable overlap and proof is difficult to obtain. There should be much stiffer penalties for those who sell drugs to young children. People who sell drugs to children who are still at school should be dealt with in the severest possible way, and I hope that in due course the Government will accept a proposal of this kind.
We should examine the system under which members of the medical profession who have been found guilty of over-prescribing or indeed of committing an offence of any kind under the drugs legislation are allowed to continue to practise. This is a serious point and is a matter which should be dealt with by the General Medical Council. That Council has the means of dealing with the black sheep and the grey sheep in the medical profession, but it has not employed them sufficiently often.
We all remember the exploits of doctors Petro and Swann who were both members of the medical profession. They were found guilty, they then appealed, and for a period of months during which their appeals were awaiting hearing they were allowed to continue to do precisely what they had originally been charged with doing. They were allowed to continue to over-prescribe drugs. This is a scandal which should be dealt with by the medical profession. If the medical profession will not deal with it, I hope that we shall be able to deal with it in Committee. There are ways in which this matter can be covered, and it may be remembered that I put down Amendments in this respect to the original Bill.
I welcome the Bill, although I feel that it does not go far enough and needs strengthening. Therefore, I hope that at a later stage we shall seek to give the Measure more strength.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I wish to ask for the customary indulgence of the House in making my maiden speech. I only wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) had mentioned a little earlier the fact that he was in possession of such a useful American booklet as

"How to speak in public on drugs". I wish first to mention my predecessor, Mr. George Perry, who sat for Nottingham, South from 1966. I would pay tribute to the contribution he made to the constituency, and I gather that he also showed a suitable independence in this House.
As the House may know, South Nottingham has many claims to distinction. For the sportsman, there is the undoubted advantage that it houses the headquarters of the Nottingham Forest Football Club, as well as the headquarters of Notts County Football Club, and Nottinghamshire Cricket Club. No hon. Member for Nottingham, South is ever in any doubt about what he is expected to do on a Saturday afternoon.
South Nottingham is not a constituency that falls into easy classification. One way of dividing the country is on a basis of what falls north or south of the River Trent. I am glad to say that the River Trent runs straight through the middle of my constituency and thus we can claim to represent the best of both worlds. This also gives me the advantage of both a city and county part. We are privileged to house the headquarters of Nottinghamshire County Council, which is now under the very able chairmanship of Alderman Mrs. Yates. It also includes the separate urban district council of West Bridgford, which has always proved that small councils can also be very efficient.
On the city side, we have such landmarks as the castle and the park, an area of great charm since it is set so near to the city centre. I should add that in parts of the constituency there are great social problems like poor housing, which must be tackled.
Nottinghamshire is particularly fortunate in having a first-class police force supported by an excellent police authority, but there can be no doubt that they face an imposing task in dealing with drug addiction. I would emphasise that in this respect I refer to the whole of Nottinghamshire and not just to my constituency. This may be of interest to the House as showing the kind of problem that exists outside London. An assumption too often made is that the drugs problem in London is the same as that which exits in the rest of the country. But this is not true.
The most important feature of the picture in Nottinghamshire is that undoubtedly the drugs problem is increasing. Last year there were 66 arrests for drug offences and, if the present trend continues, that figure will have doubled by the end of this year. It must be remembered that the number of arrests can only be a guide to the size of the problem because of the difficulties involved in recording drug offences as compared with other crimes. In a case of burglary at least one has the evidence of the burgled house, even if there is no detected burglar. But a drug offender must be caught before the offence can be recorded. Thus the total is almost certainly an under-estimate.
It is also necessary to be clear about the exact nature of the drugs problem in areas like Nottinghamshire outside London. There is an unwelcome tendency to lump all drugs together into one drug problem, but there are important differences. In London there was first the problem of heroin, which was followed by Methedrine and then the problem of methadone. But heroin had never been a major problem in Nottingham. Our problem is very much concerned with the inaccurately labelled problem of "soft drugs", in particular the abuse of the amphetamine "pep" pills. This Bill undoubtedly makes a great contribution to tackling this part of the problem.
Another problem which has been touched upon in this debate, and which has become evident in Nottingham as well as in other areas, has been the abuse of barbiturates, sleeping pills. Abuse has taken the form of the injection of barbiturates which is extremely dangerous to the user. I appreciate that there may be difficulties in imposing restrictions in this matter if for no other reason than the large numbers which are at present prescribed. I am also aware that the Advisory Committee is now examining this question, but I would stress the urgency of this matter.
In the main, there can be no doubt that the Bill will make an oustanding contribution to trying to solve the drugs problem. Above all, it provides a flexibility in the control machinery which is undoubtedly necessary in considering the variation that there has been in the drugs picture over the last few years and the

changes in the drugs which have been abused.
There are two points raised by the Bill which I believe should be explored further. First, the new restrictions could have the effect of increasing the task of the police forces. The new controls should mean that the "grey" market created by over-prescription on the part of a few doctors is brought to an end. But there is the possibility that a more directly black market could be created, and that point was also mentioned by the lion. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins).
In dealing with this, I believe that the police cannot afford to ignore the possibility that such a development may take place. Therefore, a great deal will depend on the efficient work of drugs squads throughout the country. It would be good to know that the police could be assigned more men to take part in this very important work. But we all know the difficulties involved in providing men to do the host of jobs that they are already expected to perform. An alternative is to look at ways in which the police could operate more effectively. In the East Midlands, there is already voluntary co-operation between the drug squads of the various forces. The advantage is quite simply that a picture of the whole region can be built up and, in drugs, this is very important as new forms of abuse can quickly spread from one part of the country to another.
Will my right hon. and hon. Friends consider setting up properly constituted regional drugs squads on the same lines as the regional crime squads were set up some years ago? Such squads would be able to cross local police boundaries and operate within a region. Not only would they provide much greater efficiency in detection but much better information on what is happening with drugs throughout the country, and this information is crucial for the success of the Bill.
My second reservation is not about what is in the Bill but what is left out of it. Although the Bill deals very fully with control, there is precious little in it about treatment and rehabilitation. Having visited several drug dependence clinics and studied some of the after-care facilities available, I know that there is


little ground for complacency about the situation.
My impression is that in many cases facilities are often run on shoestring budgets. This applies especially to after-care facilities. In spite of the excellent report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence dealing with rehabilitation, my view is that the case for better after-care facilities is still not sufficiently appreciated. There seems to be a fairly general impression that all that one needs to do when dealing with a user or a drug addict is to put him in hospital for a spell, after which all will be solved. That is emphatically not the case. It is no good simply discharging a former addict and allowing him to go back to his old friends and haunts. It may be precisely those friends who provide the context for his drug-taking. Nor in some cases is it much good sending him home, because in his view his home has failed before and proved inadequate.
It seems to me that there is a case for a wide range of after-care facilities, including hostels where they are needed and far more social workers. At long last, the need for after-care has been fully appreciated in prison rehabilitation. We should now make a special effort in drugs as well. Many addicts are young and capable of being rehabilitated. Time is running out if they are not to meet the early death which all too often is the fate of addiction.
It is that need that I would stress most. By this Bill, we now have an excellent control system. The next step must be for the Government to review and improve our system of treatment and after-care.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), who has made a very interesting and thoughtful speech. I have many reasons for saying that, not the least being that he did not need the booklet of advice on how to speak on this subject. He made a series of very valuable comments on the position. As Chairman of the Rehabilitation Committee of the Advisory Committee, I welcome

the attention which the hon. Gentleman paid to its report. I will do him the credit of following some of his comments, because they are of real importance.
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not cover some of the more important areas which concern us in the matter of drug dependence. But, to be fair and honest both to my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill originally and to the right hon. Gentleman who is now responsible, it could not. Treatment and rehabilitation are essential matters which must be dealt with separately. Treatment, especially, falls to be dealt with under the National Health Service, and many of us are most concerned that adequate resources should be made available through those channels both for treatment and for rehabilitation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in this fight. It is a fight which is not purely against right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite since it is also against some members of the profession who are unwilling to give adequate priority to this kind of issue, which is by no means an easy one.
I also want to follow what the hon. Gentleman said about the problem as it arises in the provinces. I was myself anxious to say a few words on this aspect. There are some respects in which the problem in the Provinces is more difficult to deal with than that in London, although the size of the London problem is infinitely greater. Nevertheless, there are some facilities available in London to meet the problem, and one is more likely to find those in social welfare who know something about it and can offer advice and help as well as the treatment facilities which are established, limited as we know they are. In the provinces, even these do not exist, and one of the great difficulties is that, because of the relatively small numbers involved, it is often thought that they do not want the kind of provision which I believe is now required. We can no longer assume that this is a problem which only exists here in London. London is undoubtedly the mecca, of course. Very often supplies are collected in London, and then people move out to other parts of the country. Developments can take place rapidly in other parts of the country and we could


find ourselves in the midst of a very serious situation.
At meetings which I have attended with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to discuss some of these problems in the provinces, I have discovered that some of those who had been affected and were trying to move out of addiction found it extremely difficult in the provinces to meet people who could give them advice and support. Among those most able to give support—in this case in the North-East—was a member of a drug squad who was able to speak the same language. He had taken the time and made the effort to get in contact with and to act as a social worker. This was very much to his credit and to the credit of those who had helped him to get to this position.
We also need more rapid provision of those who have expert knowledge of the scene in the general advice centres in the country. In some areas there may need to be special centres, day centres, and the like. However, that may not be appropriate in parts of the country where the numbers involved are not so great. But there is an urgent need for well-trained advice for young people who may be involved, and, indeed, for parents, as part of the general welfare setting, not as exclusive drug advice centres. This was recommended in the recent report on LSD and amphetamines. I hope that action will be taken along those lines. This is not only a problem in London, but also in the provinces.
I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. We have also had some extremely valuable contributions from other maiden speakers in the debate. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who speaks with special knowledge from his professional experience. But even he, it seems, was in some danger by quoting statistics about the proportion of drug cases which come from broken homes and other inadequate backgrounds. We tend to generalise, but there are dangers in doing so. Statistics in this sphere, as in so many others, are extremely inadequate, for some of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Therefore, we must not draw too much from statistics. Many of these cases are involved, but the drug

problem is often a much wider social problem. We should be careful about the statistics which we quote, because many involved in the drug scene do not fit nicely into this kind of category.
I should like to take up one or two other points which have been raised. I am never happy when I hear people talking of hard and soft drugs. These kind of easy definitions which we used to think had a lot of meaning clearly have a good deal less meaning today. It depends very much on the way the drugs are used. Amphetamines were always regarded as soft drugs, but injected they are another matter. We are now in the midst, if we are not getting beyond it, of the problem of barbiturates and their injection. There has been another switch, according to what is available at a particular time—it may not last long—to a greater use of LSD with all the special problems and dangers involved.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) wrongly took up the right hon. Member for Ashford when she suggested that he was arguing that "pot" led necessarily to heroin. I do not think that was the right hon. Gentleman's point. His point was that there might be a closer connection between "pot" and LSD as potential hallucinogens rather than with heroin.
The whole argument was gone into in great detail in the report on cannabis. I would stick by that. There is a lack of proof, a lack of adequate scientific evidence, which enables us to speak with any certainty on this matter, but we must look at the problem connected with LSD with special care and anxiety.
Another matter which we need to examine is the need to ensure that there is adequate provision for a wide range of experiments in the form of hostel facilities for rehabilitation of addicts. I am happy that some experiments are being conducted in London. But one difficulty which is already emerging—certainly in one experiment—is encouraging ex-addicts to come along. It may be—this view is held by some people, anyway—that the provision of moderate supplies through existing treatment units and centres is encouraging an easy drifting atmosphere in which people carry on as moderate heroin addicts without any great incentive to move off it and to face


the rigours of self-discipline needed to encourage them to come back into the community. That is what we want to achieve.
I know that one therapeutic community with which we are experimenting at the moment, a drug free hostel in London where this kind of self-discipline is being attempted, is very much concerned. It fears that our form of care and treatment in treatment centres is preventing us achieving the wider, more permanent, objective for which we are aiming. This reinforces the need for a careful reexamination of how our treatment units are going forward and the results coming from them. We cannot be too proud of them. We are grateful for what has been done, but we know their limitations.
We have been justly proud that we appear to have avoided the worst of the evils of black market in some of the more serious drugs. But are we paying too high a price for that? Are we establishing people on drugs, and happy to remain on drugs, without an incentive to drive them to take control of themselves more effectively, for fear that, if we do not maintain their position and an adequate dose, we might create this new black market? Are our fears fully justified? None of us can be sure. We have the dreadful warning of the position in America. We certainly do not want to copy their example. But have we gone too far in this respect? Should we not do something more to try to tip the balance in favour of the kind of incentive for self-discipline that I feel we need?
I am one of those who are very happy that the Bill has been introduced now and there is time to examine the problems with which we are very much concerned, and to which no one pretends he has a complete answer. We hope that the coming Parliamentary Recess will give us time to re-examine rather more fully some of the problems which are emerging, and from that point of view I wish the Bill well.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I apologise for thrusting myself on the House so soon after making my maiden speech last week. I would not normally have done so but, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and

my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I am a member of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. As such I have had a fairly close look at the background to the Bill and there are one or two points that I should like to make about it.
First, I join the hon. Member for South Shields in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) on his excellent maiden speech, which seemed to me to contain a high degree of lucidity and knowledge. I do not think that somebody as new as I am is the best person to pay tribute to a maiden speaker, but my hon. Friend's speech was very impressive in its way.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for South Shields in discussing rehabilitation, a subject about which he knows a good deal. I should like, instead, to pick up one or two of the points which have come before the Advisory Committee during the last year or two.
Like everybody else, I broadly support the Bill. It seems to me that it offers real hope in tackling the grave problem which is embodied in the whole question of drugs. There are, however, one or two specific points on which I have, perhaps not reservations, but at least questions which I think it is desirable to consider during the Summer Recess and when the Bill goes to Committee.
The first is really a humdrum point. I wonder whether it is wise to have both an Advisory Committee and a separate Expert Committee. It seems to me that an Advisory Committee on this topic must, inevitably, contain a fairly large number of highly expert people, and it is a fact that this whole topic is becoming more and more technical all the time. I ask therefore whether it makes sense to have both bodies, and whether we could not do it with one of them, an Advisory Committee, assisted if necessary by an expert sub-committee? The whole business of the Expert Committee reporting to the Advisory Committee, and then the Advisory Committee reporting to the Secretaries of State, seems a little elaborate. I know that the process can be short-circuited, when there is an urgent need to deal with a problem, and I hope that the Minister will consider whether we are not risking having one committee too many.
I turn, now, to a more important point. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I hope that the House will consider carefully the proposal to distinguish between possession and supply. I fully understand the desire to make it possible to punish the supplier of drugs more severely, but I am not yet persuaded that the Cannabis Sub-Committee was wrong when we argued that it is often impossible to distinguish between the two. A great deal of so-called supply is done very much on an amicable and sharing basis, rather than as an organised act of selling, and I think that the courts are liable to get into a terrible tangle in many cases if they are called upon to draw a distinction between the two. I suspect that it would make much more sense to let the judiciary decide. When a case comes before the judges they are able to judge when there is a really serious seller who should be given a heavy sentence, as opposed to the person who passes cannabis to a friend without any real desire for gain.
My second point is that I am little concerned about whether there is not a risk at times of introducing too much control into this field as a whole. I know that it is desperately serious problem, and that in many respects it is a problem which will be tackled only by controls—we cannot leave it to any other mechanism—but when we introduce new controls of any kind we should always ask ourselves whether they are absolutely necessary, and whether they may not have harmful consequences.
When I read through the Bill it gave me something of a shock to gain the impression that if my wife gave me a codeine she would be liable on indictment to 14 years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both. I investigated this more closely and found that codeine does not mean a codeine tablet, which is merely a codeine compound.
There is, however, a point here, and it was made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South when he said that people who supply cough mixture are apparently liable to heavy penalties. I am sure that this difficult barbiturates issue which is now being looked at by the Advisory Committee will bring this point before us in a serious way. To my mind, in trying to stamp out an evil we may sometimes run the risk of making life tougher

for people who benefit and find relief from some of these drugs. This is soluble problem, but I hope it will be looked at carefully and that we shall not try to stamp too heavily on the doctors' right to prescribe. I know that they have abused this in many instances but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, this is a very important freedom which must be upheld.
I propose now to say something about the law and practice of stop and search. The Clauses in the Bill on this topic correspond entirely with the report of the sub-committee on this subject, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I signed that report, and I feel that the Bill is right to allow the police the power to stop and search on reasonable grounds. My reason for supporting this proposal is that if there is a law it is essential that it is able to be enforced, and I do not think there is any chance of enforcing the law on cannabis unless the police are able to stop and search people. I do not think that the minority proposal in the Report that search should only follow an arrest would serve any useful purpose, but I hope that if the Bill and this Clause go through, as I believe they should, the Home Secretary will do what he can to encourage the police to observe the subcommittee's recommendations on police practice.
I should like to refer to one or two of those recommendations. The first is the recommendation that dress and hair style should not by themselves be regarded as reasonable grounds to stop and search. It is unlikely that the police have often picked on people simply because they have long hair, or wear peculiar clothes, but there is a belief that the police do that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will do what he can to make sure that the police never use that by itself as a simple ground for arrest.
I hope, too, that the proposal that powers of arrest and search should be subject to the objective test of reasonableness and challengeability in the civil courts will be implemented. This again seems an important part of preserving the balance between liberty and control which lies at the heart of this issue. When the police make a stop or search, they should always be required to state that they are looking for drugs. In other


words, they should state the ground on which they are making the stop. This is very largely police practice at the moment, but one hopes that the Home Secretary and leading police officers will do all they can to uphold it.
I believe, too, that the sub-committee was right to comment on the desirability of providing a leaflet setting out the legal rights of suspects when they are taken to police stations. Lastly, it is right that the police should defer making any charge of unlawful possession until the substances in question have been analysed. This is the practice in many parts of the country, but not everywhere.
It is also right that there should be priority in analysing substances found on people. Every step should be taken to analyse substances quickly when bail is not given to people involved. In other words, it is not tolerable to have people hanging around for a long time in custody waiting for an analysis of the substance to be made.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member is available for interruption, having made his maiden speech. He has finally arrived. Is he advocating—given the precautions of restriction and the power to stop and search—that the police should have power to make random stops and searches and requests to accompany them to police stations, without arrest? Is that what he is advocating?

Mr. Raison: Not random stops. Stops should be made only when the police have reasonable grounds for doing so. But the police should be able to stop and search, rather than have to arrest people formally.
My essential point follows from that question. There has been some suspicion that the police have been making random searches. On the sub-committee we had very slender evidence that this was happening. I am not sure that we had any concrete evidence at all. Nevertheless, there is a feeling around that the police occasionally make random searches, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to make sure that this does not happen. In a sense, the justification for not introducing the qualifications that

were desired by the minority of the members of the sub-committee lies in making sure that police practice is up to the highest standard.
My last point concerns health education. We would all agree that it is very important to have effective education on this topic. I do not believe that anything can be done in terms of adding Clauses to the Bill. We have a Health Education Council, whose job it is to cope with these matters. It is unfortunate that it has taken a long time to bring this council into being, owing to a number of unlucky circumstances, but the council is now in being, and I hope that it will be allowed to get on with the job. We do not need new legislation to cover that subject.
I believe that the Bill should command support. It evidently does so. We need to look at its details carefully, but I am sure that it will do the country a lot of good when it is enacted.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We have heard some admirable maiden speeches today, and an admirable near-maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House was as pleased to hear the hon. Member's second effort as it was to hear his first. It was an interesting speech.
I want to deal with one drug only—cannabis. I do so because the Home Secretary did so with charming modesty and lack of certainty. In the same way. I wish to put my views as much as can in the interrogative, but I am doubtful whether cannabis has not passed the point of no return—whether it is not something with which we now have to live. It is now in too general use. It is present in too great a quantity, and it is too easy to make.
That is the difference between cannabis and the barbiturates and amphetamines. Basically, the source of barbiturates and amphetamines is over-prescription. They are quite complicated to make. They are made by manufacturers and are supplied in medicines. Such drugs may be difficult to control, but perhaps they can be controlled. But something that is as easy to produce, as general in its use, as available and as cheap as cannabis, is another matter, and I very much doubt whether it can be controlled.
We have experience of two other drugs—alcohol and tobacco. Great efforts were made to control both those. It was not only the Americans who tried prohibition. In the case of tobacco we had the efforts of James I. The Czar of Russia went somewhat further and decreed that all people caught smoking should have their noses slit. The Porte, in Turkey, went even further, and decreed that the pushers of the dangerous drug, tobacco, should be sewn in a leather bag and thrown into the Bosphorus. But with none of those methods, anywhere in the world, was success achieved. I fear that in England, now, as in many other parts of the world for generations, cannabis has reached the point at which abolition will prove a futile exercise.
This is so because, on the whole, it is an indulgence of youth—youth that is challenging the standards of the older generation. Youth has a right to challenge us; we have not made too good a job of things. It is not a very inspiring society in which we live. We have just got through an election in which, as far as I am aware, no ideal or principle impinged, and in which I do not think that anybody seriously believed anything that we politicians were saying. It was rather a humiliating election.
That is the kind of society which the young, in a high degree, are rejecting today. They say, "We do not like your standards. We do not think much of them. We believe in a less acquisitive society—a society that is gentler and that associates more quietly." They compare their drug with ours and say, "Take your tobacco. It is dirty, unlike ours. It is habit-forming, unlike ours. It is a drug very often taken alone, unlike ours, which is taken socially." They also look at those of us who get our lift and our level of inebriation through alcohol and they say, "Here is something that is very much worse. You may be able to get drunk on pot. You may over-indulge in it. You can equally over-indulge in alcohol, and if you do the results are a good deal worse. "Pot" will not give you cirrhosis of the liver. Pot will not give you the D.T.s". When we find that kind of comparison being made—where we find prohibition not only being ineffective but awfully difficult to make sense of—it is inviting trouble simply to say, "No".
What is the case against cannabis? It is not a drug of addiction. It is not a drug that reduces efficiency, taken in moderation. As far as I can make out, it is not a drug that produces lung cancer or anything like that, taken in moderation. Of course, taken in excess it can have bad effects, but not such bad effects as alcohol has. The case against it is basically that it leads to something else. It is said that all people who go in for the serious hard drugs—heroin and so on—probably started on cannabis. This may or may not be so, but a tremendous lot of people who began on cannabis do not go on to hard drugs—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I wonder if in relation to the Motion which now stands on the Order Paper for Private Business at 7 o'clock it would be convenient to take the item in two parts, the procedure part and then the Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to inform me that he was to make this request. I have considered it and decided that we shall take the Motion in two parts. The Chairman of Ways and Means will move first the procedural part.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended.—[The Chairman of Way and Means.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: I make no apology to the House for the fact that we have this interruption at Seven o'clock in the normal business to deal with this matter. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament to use the procedure of Parliament to protect the interests of his constituents. The Greater London Council, whose Bill


we will later be considering, has a responsibility for a number of matters of considerable importance to my constituency and, in particular, for the flood protection of London. The siting of the Thames flood barrier is a matter of vital importance to those whom I represent.
In the past I have used the procedure of Private Business, and I intend to continue to do so as I think it is my responsibility to use every Parliamentary means at my disposal in the discharge of my responsibility to my electorate. I am pleased to be able to say that the Greater London Council has now delivered to me, this afternoon, a letter which it felt unable to deliver this morning, before I objected at 2.30 p.m. That letter has now made it possible for proceedings to be less protracted than they might otherwise have been. Perhaps I might quote a paragraph from that letter for the record. The letter is signed by the appropriate official of the Greater London Council and says:
To the best of my present knowledge and belief the documents referred to in this letter are the only reports to the Council, since the Report of Studies, which contain a reference to the siting of a barrier in the Crayford area. It during the course of the next seven days any further documents come to my knowledge upon which the Council decision not to proceed with Crayfordness site was based, I will make them available to you.
That letter is signed by Mr. Horner who is in charge of the Council's business in relation to flood protection.
I have accepted that undertaking on the basis that a genuine search will be conducted by the G.L.C. for the information I have requested, and that if such information is found it will be made immediately available to me.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: It is gratifying to hear that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is not pressing with his objections to this Bill, because it is a most important Measure upon which the whole of the capital financing of the Greater London area depends. Without the Bill London would be unable to proceed with the provision and equipment of schools, ambulance stations, fire stations, nor with the provision of housing accommodation as well as a number of other important matters.
Since we are just before the Summer Recess, there was a real danger that if the hon. Gentleman had proceeded with the course upon which he had embarked then the whole of the financing of these important matters would have been in jeopardy, which would have been a deplorable matter for the whole of the people living in the Greater London Area. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman feels obliged to attempt to use parliamentary techniques to deal with a matter completely unconnected with the Bill. I am glad that I have played a small part in helping to produce the letter which the hon. Gentleman requires. All's well that ends well. London will have its money and he will have a sight of this report that was bothering him.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I cannot accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) because until a short while ago I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in opposing this Bill. Primarily he found the same problem as I did—it is impossible to get answers from the Greater London Council. We as Members of Parliament are entitled to raise the matter here when the Council comes to us and demands help to carry out its work. It is regrettable that we have to let this Bill go through as it were on the nod tonight, because as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out if we do not there will be no money for London.
There are very great issues raised in the Bill. There is insufficient money for my constituents to be able to travel properly in London at fares which they can afford. It is a direct responsibility of the G.L.C. in this Bill to provide that money. I do not have an opportunity owing to this procedural Motion which I accept of arguing the case on behalf of my constituents, who are suffering very much because of the indolence of the G.L.C. in producing this Bill too late for discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Paget: I had just got to the point in my argument when I was dealing with the case against cannabis. That case does not rest upon the evil results of cannabis, taken by itself or in moderate quantities. We have had the very elaborate examination of the use of this drug in 1893 by the Commission in India. We have had the Mayoralty Report in New York and the Wootton Commission here. All three gave cannabis a clean bill of health, moderately used. Like alcohol or any other stimulant excessive use can have bad results but on the whole not such bad results as alcohol.
But it is said that cannabis unlike alcohol and unlike tobacco can be a link leading to more serious drugs. It used to be said that people who took heroin began taking drugs through cannabis. That may or may not be so, but it is certainly the case that a vast number of people who have taken cannabis and who in other countries have used cannabis regularly all their lives, as their fathers did before them, have not found it necessary to move on to any other more serious drug, nor has anyone produced any medical reason suggesting that cannabis creates a weakness or a craving or anything of that sort which looks for a greater satisfaction.
Every one of the Commissions which examined this rejected it. It was suggested today that, even if that is not the case it leads to the taking of one of the hallucinants such as LSD. I find this an unconvincing argument because, used moderately and in the normal way as a social drug whereby a party gets some exhilaration and euphoria and finds that people's conversation seems more brilliant than it was before, cannabis has none of the elements of the hallucinant.
The hallucinant effect comes only when the drug is used in gross excess and the user is heavily inebriated. But it comes with highly unpleasant results, when he is sick, when he feels jolly ill. All I have understood from the literature is that the hallucinations of cannabis are very unpleasant, and I should have thought that

that kind of experience did not really make hallucination more attractive—indeed, rather less so. A person on LSD or one of the hallucinants has the hallucination without the unpleasantnesses of inebriation. So it seems to me that that argument falls down.
The only link which I can find—I regard it as a dangerous link—between cannabis and the hard drugs is illegality. Making illegal the use of this drug which has become so common means that a person has to obtain it from illegal sources. He is made a customer of the pushers, and the pushers are pushing the more dangerous drugs, too. In contrast to what happens with tobacco, which one can obtain without being in any way connected with the people who sell dangerous drugs, illegality means that one can obtain cannabis only by being connected with pushers and all the dangers which that involves.
It seems to me that one has to weigh these two evils. On the one hand, with a drug as easy to obtain as cannabis, and in wide use, is there any reasonable prospect left of eliminating it or even much reducing it? If we cannot eliminate it or reduce it much, should we not be better advised to try control rather than prohibition? If we brought this drug under control, as we do with tobacco and alcohol, we could lay down standards, preventing the sort of difficulties referred to in an admirable speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The trouble with cannabis is that one never quite knows what one is getting. What may be a moderate dose with one batch is a dangerous dose with another. One does not know the standards and strengths. A person stumbles into the bad effects which come with excessive use. Control could deal with that. We could look into it and see what was the least harmful method of supply and the strength to provide the least objectionable effects. We could exercise control.
Second, we could educate people more in distinguishing use from misuse. At present, by treating the use of cannabis as a crime, when that conflicts with the experience of so many people and so many people's friends who have found it, or who have seen it used, with no ill effects, with pleasant results, and without loss or deterioration of faculty, what we


say lacks conviction. If, on the other hand, one could concentrate on educating people about what happens when it is used in excess, one could carry more conviction because the propaganda and education would be true.
Finally, we could tax. At present, "pot" offers much the cheapest way of getting "tight". The young who have not much money can get from "pot" the results which would be much more expensive to get from alcohol. This is something else which may be worth considering.
I am extremely glad that the Home Secretary introduced the matter in the way he did, saying that he would look at all aspects of these questions. I urge him to look carefully, among other matters, into the question of cannabis and see whether, in the light of all the experience, and at the point we have reached—a point probably beyond return as regards elimination—we should be more sensible to try control rather than prohibition.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The debate has been distinguished by some excellent, helpful and cogent maiden speeches. Those who have followed the maiden speakers have paid their individual tributes to them, but I feel that I should fail in my duty if I did not say how impressed I have been, as all hon. Members have been, by the maiden speeches we have heard today. If I may say so, without wishing to single anyone out, I found particularly helpful the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) who showed with many facts the difficulties which face the general practitioner in medicine in dealing with the problem of drug addiction. This is not the first time that I have heard of these things from the mouth of a doctor. Anyone who consults his own medical practitioner in London, for instance, will learn that many doctors have been subjected to threats and have had their lives made difficult in many ways by people so inflamed by their addiction to drugs that they are willing to go to almost any lengths to satisfy their craving.
That, I submit, is one answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he sought to make a case for legalising marijuana—"pot", cannabis, or

whatever one calls it—one sort of drug under many headings. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, who makes his points with skill and persuasion, but I cannot accept the case which he sought to make for cannabis. From the point of view of its ill effects, it is still a comparatively new drug in this country, certainly on the scale at which it is being smoked now, and one need not throw oneself very far back in history to remember that the sect of the assassins buoyed themselves up by smoking hashish in order to carry out their crimes. I submit that there is no doubt that this is a powerful hallucinatory agent. We should require to be very strongly persuaded by medical evidence that cannabis was fit to be smoked before coming to any such concusion on legalisation.
For my part, I cannot accept a number of the statements made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, however persuasively, and I do not agree that the extent of cannabis taking in our community is not a grave social evil which we must do our best by every legal means to prevent.
That does not mean that we must stock at legal means. Of course not. The law is the last resort. We must, as many hon. Members have said, look to education. We must look to research. I am sure that the Home Office will do its utmost to reseach into the causes of the spread of drug taking, which I believe, is one of the most pernicious and dangerous happenings in our society today. For this reason, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having reintroduce this Bill so soon. It is very important that the additional legal safeguards in the Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible.
I did not have the opportunity of addressing the House on the Second Reading of the original Bill. I am particularly happy to have that opportunity this evening because only this week I have had exemplified in a trial at which I was presiding the fact that a distinction should and can be drawn, and I suggest will with great advantage be drawn, between those who are merely takers of the drug cannabis, who are in possession of it to smoke it themselves, and those who are purveying it, pushing it, trading in it to enrich themselves. It is often


said in the criminal law that without receivers there would be no theives. If there were no fences for the thieves to take their stolen loot to, they would have great difficuty in disposing of it. In a way, the same consideration applies here. I concede at once that there is a class of person who proselytises because he thinks it is a good thing to do, or he has friends who want the drug and he misguidely thinks that he is helping them. But if there were no evil people to supply the drug, very often to enrich themselves, we should not have the same problem. There are people in our community enriching themselves by this pernicious trade.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether someone is just in possession of the drug or is supplying it, selling or pushing it. In such a case in a court of law he will always get the benefit of the doubt, either in the jury's verdict or, if he has pleaded guilty to possessing it, in the decision of the judge as to sentence. But there will be cases where it is conclusively proved that a man is a supplier, living on this traffic just as people have lived and no doubt still live, for instance, on illegal abortions, though much less since the Abortion Act. It is at that traffic that the law and its penalties should primarily be aimed. Therefore, I con-congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary upon having drawn this distinction by way of penalty between two classes of act—on the one hand supplying drugs in the Schedules to the Act and on the other merely being in possession of them.
It is true that a case would have to be very serious to merit a penalty of 14 years imprisonment, but we do not have to look at the ultimate sentence to appreciate the value of such a distinction. Its value lies in the fact that Parliament has drawn a distinction between the gravity of pushing the drug and the relatively lesser gravity of possessing it for personal consumption.
I recognise, as I am sure all my hon. Friends will, that many of those in possession of it for their own consumption would evoke sympathy in all of us. Many of them stand in need of great help, and when they appear before the courts are much less often sentenced than they are helped by being put on

probation or recommended for treatment, or dealt with in some other way. But in order that this pernicious evil shall be met, and society shall fight it, it is absolutely essential that those who are proved to have been suppliers, to be enriching themselves by this trade, should meet with the rigours of the law, much less to punish them than as an example to others.
I cannot accept what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, that this evil has come to stay and cannot be rooted out. If we can get at the suppliers and the sources of supply, and deal with them with the severity which their offences demand, we shall have gone a long way to rooting out this new evil in our midst. It is an evil about which any parent with children growing up in a world in which drug taking is flourishing must feel very deeply and very personally.
I said that this week I had seen such a case. I shall not mention its name, because it might be subject to appeal and I would not wish to bring out all the facts in the House. But I presided at Northampton, where I am Recorder, at a trial where a man pleaded guilty to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not pursue this.

Mr. Grieve: I will not, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that there was brought to my notice a case in which once a man who was a source of supply had been removed from the scene in the town where he was operating the number of cases of persons in possession of cannabis fell dramatically. This illustrated the evil that the supplier can do, and that when he is removed there will often be a substantial improvement in the local situation with regard to drug-taking.
I found myself in some agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers), to whose maiden speech I listened with great pleasure, when he suggested that Clause 25 might well be subject to amendment, and that the ordinary provisions should apply with regard to the prosecution of offences under the Bill.
Subject to that, and having wished to speak only briefly to make my point about the distinction between pushing the drug and taking it, I congratulate my


right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill once more before the House.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The subject which we have been discussing is rather unusual in that it draws both support and opposition and criticism right across normal party political lines in the House. I find myself in rather more support of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve)—though not entirely—and of his general attitude and approach than of the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), though they will probably be supported by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The debate thus crosses over party lines.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My views are certainly not represented by those of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He is most eloquent, persuasive, high-principled and everything else, but his views are certainly not mine, and I trust that if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to speak for myself in due course.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is better to do that than to intervene in another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Ogden: I should be the last to try to speak for the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I was saying that to judge from his previous contribution he would be rather more in sympathy with some of the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend than with the comments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull.
My contribution to the debate will be short, as I want to speak about the Bill and not the wider aspects of the drug scene in the United Kingdom, the United States or anywhere else. I have not the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull or the esoteric knowledge about what is hallucinatory and what is not. As a politician, I should be the last to suggest what causes hallucinations and what does not.
We have had a series of notable maiden speeches from both sides of the House.

The membership of the House has been enriched by those who have been able to bring to this debate knowledge and experience which will be useful in the days and years ahead. I do not know whether those who have made their maiden speeches today know the tradition that anyone taking part in a Second Reading debate is automatically offering himself for service on the Committee which considers the Bill. I hope that that is explained to new hon. Members somewhere along the line. However, they will be useful members of the Committee if they are appointed to it.
The debate has fallen into two parts, one about the Bill—and it is not many months ago that we debated an almost identical Bill—and the other about the general use or misuse of drugs. It must be repeated that this is a limited Bill which does not set out to solve all the problems of the misuse of drugs, but although it is limited, it is very useful. It is almost identical to the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary. I spent about one-and-a-half hours wading through the old Bill and comparing it with the new before I found any alterations. It was not exactly a wasted exercise.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think me uncharitable if I say that the Government have been fortunate in having inherited from my right hon. Friends many useful Measures which they are able to bring before the House while spending some weeks, months and possibly years making up their minds about what kind of legislation to introduce in this Session and the next. No doubt when eventually introduced in the autumn that legislation will not have the same degree of all-party support.
I ought to declare my interest. I did so on the last occasion we debated the subject in the last Session, but some hon. Members may not know that I have the honour to be the parliamentary adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It is a two-way exchange. I am not a pharmacist. The society advises me about pharmacy and I advise it about proceedings in Parliament. I learn from the society a great deal and it learns from me in some ways.
I must make it clear that the support which the pharmaceutical profession gave to my right hon. Friend's Bill will be repeated for this Bill. Its interest and support will be available to the new Home Secretary. Many enactments and regulations which will be made under the Bill will have a direct effect on pharmacists as well as on the medical profession and they are equally concerned to implement them. My further remarks are entirely mine and should not be attributed to the Pharmaceutical Society, or any member of it.
There are many matters which ought to be discussed in Committee. I have two comments to make and two questions to ask. The Home Secretary referred to the consultations which he will probably have with the General Medical Council in the coming months. We ought to have some idea about the kind of points which the right hon. Gentleman will be putting to the council. I hope that he will be able to tell us later more about the kind of things which the Government will seek from the G.M.C. It may be unfortunate that such consultation was not possible 12 months or 18 months ago, because the Bill is largely the result of the failure and shortcomings of some members of the General Medical Council and the medical profession.
As the last Bill proceeded through Committee, party divisions were almost non-existent and the Government of the day made a number of concessions on matters which were raised by back benchers. There were five or six meetings of the Committee, and the Government of the day accepted some Amendments, or at least said that they did not like the form of words and would introduce another form of words to cover what was proposed, having accepted a point of view supported by both sides of the Committee.
What are the new Government's intentions about such Amendments made at that time? The then Government's undertakings did not bind Parliament, of course, but there was a general understanding that some changes would be made. I had expected the new Bill to include those changes, but it does not do so. The Under-Secretary will know that his colleagues suggested many Amendments on behalf of the Opposition at that time. May we take those

Amendments to be an indication of the Government Amendments which will be introduced later?
I now come to my comments. From time to time during this debate and even more during the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill and during its Committee stage, the American drug scene has been mentioned. I should be the first to say that we have much to learn from American experience, but American experience has differed within the boundaries of that country. The situation in Boston has been very different from that in California and that in California very different from that in Memphis, Tennessee. We have something to learn from American mistakes and experience—and the experiments have been mentioned—but there is a danger of believing that because something has been proved effective or ineffective in the United States, it will be good or bad in this country. Let us not carry the similarity too far, because the differences between our drug scene and the American are greater than the similarities.
The term "drug" is very emotive. If I wished to be difficult or awkward to the Under-Secretary, I should ask him to inquire of his advisers the definition of "drug". They might be able to tell him what a pharmaceutical product was, or to give him a list of scheduled drugs—I will spare the House that, although it may arise later. However, the word "drug" attracts six-inch headlines in the newspapers and there has already been a reference to "Swinging London" and so on.
There is a danger with the use of these newsworthy phrases which make a story or a scandal that we overlook that while many are affected or afflicted, while the misuse of drugs can cause damage, danger and death, the proper use of drugs is an effective and necessary part of the welfare and well-being of people and of life itself. The people with whom this limited Bill is concerned are a small proportion of the total number of young people and old people. While we may get the headlines by talking about drugs, let us try to keep a balance and to remember that the vast majority of people have not, are not and are never likely to use drugs. While we concern ourselves with these vital issues with which the Bill is concerned, let us keep a balance.
We are dealing with a limited Bill, although it will be very useful. In many ways, the powers in it are quite Draconian. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred to some and the Daily Telegraph dealt with the issue this morning. Quite extensive powers are being given to the Home Secretary. We shall have to consider them in Committee. However, the Bill deserves support. I hope that those who serve on the Committee which considers it will be able to get on with the work as soon as we return from the Summer Recess and I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The only comment which I wish to make at this stage on the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is that "drug" may be an emotive word, but, thank heavens, when we mean "drug", we do not have to talk about a "pharmaceutical product".

Mr. Ogden: I hesitate to try to teach the hon. Member how to suck eggs, but I did not use the words "pharmaceutical product"; I said, "medicinal product".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know that that makes much difference to my point. This is a case where a shorter word, as always, is to be preferred to a longer one.
I wish to join in the congratulations which have been given on behalf of the House to the numerous maiden speakers we have heard today. The great flood of eloquence makes one rather nervous. If this is what they do in the green wood, what will they do in the dry? I congratulate the maiden speakers whom I heard—the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers), the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) and Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I should particularly like to associate myself with the tribute paid by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon to his predecessor, Sir Cyril Black, whose courage and

integrity in this House was an encouragement to many people while he sat here.
I wish that I could congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is no longer present. I cannot do that because he behaved in what, I thought, was an unscrupulous manner. He was extremely offensive personally to me without having received any provocation of any kind. He referred to me as a television pundit. I cannot help it if the right hon. Gentleman is not invited to appear on television as many times as I am. He must address his complaints to the B.B.C. or to the Independent Television Authority but not come here and take out his spleen on me.
If I may say something in absentia to the right hon. Gentleman, the rights and position of the smallest he in this House are as important as the rights of the greatest he. We come here to take part in debate, not to be insulted.
I have had occasion to criticise the right hon. Gentleman in the past. He said that he would not put up with me in the future. That, however, rests not with him, but with Mr. Speaker, who decides who puts up with whom in this House and when. I have had occasion to criticise the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of drugs because of his unchivalrous and unfair behaviour towards the most distinguished lady, Lady Wootton, when she produced her Report. On this occasion, I had to put the right hon. Gentleman right on a different matter.
The sequence of events was this. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. When I rose to put right the misrepresentation, he then proceeded to misrepresent me by suggesting, quite gratuitously, that my views were different from those of my right hon. Friend. They are not. We are in complete agreement. What my right hon. Friend said, quoting another right hon. Friend of mine, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), was the need to make the case for the Bill credible to young people—a most important and constructive point. The Home Secretary was misrepresented by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East as having said that the majority of young people were in favour


of legalising cannabis. That is a quite different point.
It is unjust to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it misrepresents his view and it is the kind of smear that is calculated to inhibit honest discussion of this problem in the House, because if One points to the realities of the situation and says that there are these difficulties, that some young people have a view and it is not always identical with that of the older generation, and one is then to be presented as being in some way in favour of legalising cannabis and being in favour of permissiveness, that destroys the whole basis of honest discussion of this extremely difficult problem. The former Home Secretary did a disservice to the House on this occasion. He fell below his own better standards and he certainly did not contribute to the rationality of our discussions. I am sorry that he is not present to hear my rebuke, but I would like him to know that I forgive him.
The Bill gives me a certain sense of déja vu since the last occasion when we debated this matter—I am sorry to sound like the Leader of the Opposition: I recall that it was on 25th March this year—the hon. Member for West Derby and I have become a kind of mirror image of each other, because he was on this side of the House and I was on the benches opposite; I spoke before him and he spoke after me. On this occasion, we have reversed the whole thing. I congratulate the hon. Member. I read part of his earlier speech while he was making his current speech. It was substantially different—not in principle, but in presentation—from his previous speech. I congratulate the hon. Member on his versatility.
The only difference has been that the sponsoring party has changed. That does not matter because, as the hon. Member for West Derby said, there is no great division in the House on party lines. When the Government were in opposition, we suggested improvements. I hope that they will not be abandoned merely because the Opposition have now become the Government. I was extremely encouraged by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in this respect that he will take fully into account the previous debates and the points made in Committee on the previous Bill with

a view to tabling Amendments to improve the Bill further. That is the right course to take. I congratulate him on his extremely sensitive and perceptive speech on this most difficult problem.
I welcome the Bill. On this fearful and emotional subject, one wants to be as rational as possible. It is not a question of choice between morality and immorality. It is not a choice between being permissive and restrictive. It is a choice which we have to make between having a sensible law or a silly law. The Bill represents a step towards a more rational position in the law and I therefore welcome it. The welcome must, however, be qualified because it is my considered view that this is only one chapter of the novel. It is not the end of the story.
The principles on which a good law on this subject should be based are threefold. First, drugs must be controlled; everyone is in agreement about that. They should be more or less strictly controlled according to their degree of danger; the reclassification in the Bill does that. Thirdly, a distinction should be drawn between different types of offences, and the Bill does that. Pushing is certainly one thing and possession is another. Clearly, pushing a drug should be punished much more severely than merely having possession of it.
I know that great difficulties will arise—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows this—in making those distinctions work in practice, and one has to look at this from the practical as well as the theoretical point of view. Nevertheless, the distinction which the law is embodying is sound and we must ensure that the matter is thoroughly probed in Committee.
I turn to the question of cannabis which was made the principal theme of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) with which the hon. Member for West Derby unwisely suggested I would be in agreement, or at least more in agreement than with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I did not find myself particularly in sympathy with the approach of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but he voiced a point of view


which is much more widespread than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East allowed. It is much more widespread among young people than he allowed. The right hon. Gentleman, as is the habit of the elderly, pontificated about the habits of the young. That has been a fault of the elderly throughout the ages.
I have been in touch on this matter with members of the Young Conservative movement over a long period. Nobody would suggest that they are a set of revolutionaries wanting to undermine our moral fibre by drug peddling. It is interesting that there is a wide variety of views among Young Conservatives about how we should deal with this problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, who perhaps has more expert knowledge on this subject than any other Member, alluded to that spectrum of opinion when he said that it was necessary to make our arguments and laws credible.
Cannabis is at the forefront of discussion, but it is not necessarily the most important issue. Abuse of LSD is, in my opinion, a much more important matter than cannabis. I am sure the Home Secretary and others in the Home Office will look very carefully at this part of the problem. LSD has very useful psychiatric purposes. It can be used as an instrument of analysis, and it is a much cheaper means of analysis than a full Freudian analysis. But it is essential that it should be used under medical control and not for getting "kicks" or personal sensations. It is a much more dangerous drug than cannabis and we should be much more concerned about its spread.
With regard to legal sanctions on cannabis, the very distinguished Wootton Report, which should be read by everyone concerned about this subject, ended in an agnostic position. Curiously, I find myself in the same position for once. I agree with the Wootton Report that the law against cannabis should be maintained; but I also agree with the gloss which it puts on it, namely, for the time being.
The reason why we must retain the law against cannabis is twofold. First, we do not know what would be the effect of

removing it, although we know that it would be very difficult to put it back again. Secondly, in the present state of knowledge on the vital question whether the taking of cannabis leads to the taking of hard drugs, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Parliament to remove the sanctions. Unless we can give a clear negative answer to that question, cannabis must remain on the list of banned and controlled drugs.
That brings me to a major point—the need for research. I hope that the Government will be generous in the provision of funds for this purpose and, not only that research will be undertaken by the Home Office, but that the Home Office will be generous in encouraging independent medical research organisations to carry out their work and will co-ordinate whatever research they may be doing with those other organisations.
I am also concerned about the liberties of the subject and of the medical profession; they are very much interconnected. There are two questions which hon. Members must examine very closely. First, there is the executive power which is to be taken to strike off the register or penalise doctors who over-prescribe or who have committed an offence. It is appalling to introduce that principle into the Bill. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is reopening discussions with the medical profession on this point.
It is a good Conservative principle and a principle of common sense—very often the two coincide—that the Government should do nothing for a profession which a profession can do for itself. One of the great safeguards of liberty in this country is self-governing, self-ordered professions. One should regard any inroad into that principle with high suspicion. I am not happy about the executive arrogating this power to itself, and I hope that there will be a sharing of disciplinary powers in the Bill in its final form.
I am concerned about the searching of premises and the powers of arrest. The distinguished Sub-Committee which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford headed was unable to agree on the question of powers of arrest, but it was able to agree on one very important


paint which is incorporated in the Bill, namely, that the power of arrest without a warrant must be subject to the objective test of reasonableness. It is an important safeguard of individual liberty that there should be the test of the reasonable man to keep the activities of the police, as the arm of the Executive, in check. What is meant by "reasonableness" must be probed and discussed in Committee so that guidance can be given.
I come to my final point on which the Home Secretary, in welcome contrast to his predecessor, laid great emphasis—the need for education. The law has only a limited rôle to play in drugs. It may be a very important role, but it is limited. We need an intensive programme of education in the schools on the facts and dangers of drug taking. This has been recommended by the Magistrates' Association.
What is important is that instruction should be part of the ordinary school curriculum, given by resident teachers and not by specialist outsiders, coming on visits to the schools. It should be accepted as part of the ordinary instruction in schools. In that way we avoid the danger of sensationalising the issue and at the same time we impart the necessary information. This is a case where ignorance is very far from bliss. Magistrates also need courses in the whole question of drug taking and its effect if they are to discharge their duties imaginatively and helpfully. It is only if the law is supported by a moral con-census in the community, particularly among the younger section of the community, that it can become effective.
I hope that the Home Secretary who has an enlightened and reasonable approach to this and other problems will seek to co-ordinate any ideas or programmes the Home Office may have in mind with the Ministry of Education so that a combined approach can be made to this problem.
In his closing remarks the Home Secretary raised a profound philosophical question: how far should society interfere with the life of the individual and with freedom of choice? I would like to move that question down to a rather lower level of pragmatism and say how far can society interfere with individual lives and freedom of choice? I would

say that it is only in so far as the law which is the agency of society's interference is supported by and accepted by public opinion. The law is an agency charged with a purpose which is beyond its power to accomplish. When considering legal matters we should always have that wider setting in mind.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of a distinguished philosopher and historian, not Walter Bagehot but Cardinal Newman, who in one of his essays made a profound observation about jurisprudence when he said "it is essential that public opinion should give the law to law." I am confident that the Home Secretary in discharging his most difficult tasks will see that the dictum of Cardinal Newman is realised in practice.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: While I support many of the views put forward by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), I find it somewhat amusing that it should have taken him nearly four hours of waiting to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for having administered the mildest of rebukes to him.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am hardly responsible for that. I have sat here for tour hours, but the right hon. Gentleman would not give way when I attempted to interrupt him. If the hon. Member wishes to censure anyone for waiting a long time, he should direct his censure towards the Chair.

Mr. Davis: I certainly will not at this stage of my parliamentary life seek to censure the Chair. I could see the hon. Member frothing over for four hours, but it was the mildest of rebukes. He was referred to as a television pundit, and I have always regarded him as the most distinguished of all television pundits. No doubt my right hon. Friend will rest easily in his bed tonight because he has been forgiven.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) referred to the Bill as a limited Bill. It is indeed that, and I have a fear that it might be taken to be the last word. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not so regard it because the limitations are very serious. Unquestionably


the problem of drug taking is a menacing one with tremendous difficulties. It is also right that hitherto the law has been confused and fragmented, full of difficulties and it is right that it should be consolidated. What this Bill fails to do is to make proper provision for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation which is all-essential in our consideration of drug addiction.
The whole emphasis here is really on penal sanctions. I am not sure that the penalties for taking cannabis are not already sufficiently adequate. What I am concerned about is the emphasis which the Bill gives to penal sanctions. I want to deal with the Bill and make some observations which I hope will be noted later. These remarks deal with matters which cause me grave concern, particularly over the matter of civil liberties and here I join with the observations of the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
Clause 8 of the Bill reads:
A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers …
certain activities to take place. This is in contrast to the provisions in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 9 where there is no such requirement, where the word "knowing" is not imported into any of those Clauses. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this later. If it is right to include the word "knowing" in Clause 8 it is equally right to include it in the other Clauses.
Clause 9 deals with the question of opium and the apparatus to be used in administering opium, but it has nothing to say, nor is there anything in the rest of the Bill as I understand it, to deal with devices such as syringes so frequently used in the administration of drugs which are more commonly used than opium.
Clause 10 deals with the prevention of the misuse of controlled drugs. I would have thought it appropriate within the terms of that Clause to have made some provision for programmes of education and research into the causes, treatment and prevention of drug addiction. There is nothing in the Clause about it. There is nothing in the Clause about facilities for treatment of drug

addiction or rehabilitation or after-care of drug addicts. These are serious omissions which I hope will be remedied.
The main burden of my speech deals with civil liberties. I am a great believer in these, as is the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I believe that in our democratic society we must zealously guard our civil liberties, and I am rather worried that this Bill in its present form falls far short of doing that. Those who are aimed at in the Bill are those who are aften not really able to look after themselves when subject to arrest. Often they are depressed and confused, not really able to understand the Judges' Rules, sometimes unable to understand questions put by police officers. I am exceedingly worried that the power of search and arrest contained in Clause 23 goes far too wide. If we seek to preserve our civil liberties in this regard we shall also be assisting the police in their duties, not creating barriers for them, as the Home Office report seems to suggest. It would prevent irresponsible criticism from being charged against the police.
One of the points made about search and arrest when this was being debated was that there was an essential balance which needed to be struck in all law enforcement between police powers and individual rights, which must be preserved, and yet the majority, in the Home Office Report on "Powers of Arrest and Search in Relation to Drug Offences" upheld the powers of search and, on balance, thought that these powers should be retained, but made no attempt to define "reasonable grounds", the words which appear in Clause 23.
There was a minority view, which I personally adopt, and which embodied the criticisms of the Law Society, the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Release, and the majority view was savagely attacked in the New Law Journal of Thursday, 14th May of this year. It was proposed to the subcommittee that the power of arrest should be substituted for the stop-search power; in other words that police procedures in this sort of case, in suspected drug cases, should conform with police procedures in dealing with suspected offenders generally. These criticisms were not, I think, ever answered by the majority in the report.
What they did say was that there was a danger for the police of actions for wrongful arrest, which would frequently occur because the police are particularly vulnerable when searching a suspected drug offender. This seems to me to be a quite extraordinary argument, because it suggests that innocent people should be put in jeopardy but not the police.
I would support the minority view in this regard, a minority view which went into this question in very great detail. It suggested that "reasonable grounds" could be defined by exclusion:
The following circumstances shall not be sufficient in themselves whether alone or in conjunction with each other to establish reasonable grounds of suspicion: first that the person searched appears to be the kind of person frequently found in possession of drugs; second, that he was in places locally commonly associated with possession of drugs; third, he was in a locality where drugs are possessed; fourth, he was found in a public place by night or in the early morning.
It was argued that it was not impossible to define "reasonable grounds" and I would have thought that this would have met the criticisms suggested by the Law Society. I have a bit of an axe to grind as far as that is concerned, but I would have thought criticisms based on the practical experience of people who are advocates in Magistrates' courts, and who deal with this sort of problem day in and day out were worth considering.
The police argued that it would be time consuming, inconvenient and sometimes impracticable if another of the suggestions of the minority were adopted, and that was that there should be a third party present when someone is searched. This is an essential safeguard. When a young person under 17 is being questioned by the police it is essential that his parent or guardian should be present during the questioning, and it would be equally right, I suppose, if the police were found to argue that it would be time consuming, inconvenient and sometimes impracticable in those circumstances, but the fact remains that the law has imposed an obligation on the police, and I would have thought that the law equally owes a duty to those unfortunate people who may be suspected of being in possession of drugs and who may need this protection additionally.
I am very sensitive about the need for ensuring that civil liberties are observed, and I hope that when the Bill is debated

in Committee the points I have made, perhaps inadequately, will be given some heed, because it is essential, when we are dealing with a matter as emotive as this, and where a great deal of hysteria can be so easily engendered, that we always have regard to the civil liberties of the minority of people who may be very adversely prejudiced if these rights are not established.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said he hoped the points which he raised so forcefully and fluently would be taken up in Committee. If the Whips of his party have any sense at all he will be there in person in Committee to argue them himself, and I am sure he will argue them very forcefully indeed.
It is, of course, true, as he said, that this Bill will in some ways accentuate the clash between the forces of law and order and a substantial section of the population. We have heard many estimates this afternoon, and one can exaggerate the size of this problem, but we do not know how large is the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who knows more about this subject and brings more common sense to it than perhaps any other Member of the House, has reminded us that the Wootton Report estimated that there may be anything between 30,000 and 300,000 users of cannabis in this country at this moment, and he said that he would not be wholly surprised if the right number were a million. The fact of the matter is we do not know how large a section of the community are now in conflict with the law.
At the same time, one must clearly be torn in two directions in any discussion of this subject. The Bill itself is torn in two directions. On the one hand, one wants to see that all possible provision is made for bringing back into the community as a whole those who are misusing drugs; one does not want to condemn them out of hand. On the other hand, one wants to see that deterrents are there to deter the vast majority who do not use drugs from experimenting needlessly.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central referred to Clause 9, perhaps the oddest


Clause in the Bill, which seeks to outlaw the possession of opium pipes. I suspect that a permanent under-secretary when considering the problem of drugs in 1869 looked at a Clause produced by the clerks in the Home Office and said, "For heaven's sake bring this forward in 100 years' time." Such is the efficiency of the filing system in the Home Office that it was brought forward 100 years later, and we have this odd reference to a form of drug taking which, happily, is a problem no longer.
When the previous Bill was in Committee we did exactly what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central suggested and put down an Amendment which proposed that the possession of hypodermic syringes should be brought within the meaning of Clause 9. The then Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health quite properly pointed out that if the number of syringes and hypodermics in circulation were restricted those who were on the needle already would be more likely to use needles which were contaminated, with the risk of spreading the illness and poisoning which come from the needle. There is a direct clash of interest between the welfare of those who are already addicted and a possible deterrent to those who might be tempted later to move on to this most dreadful of all addictions, the addiction to the needle. I hope that the Bill will move more in the direction of deterrence.
The Bill proposes substantial deterrents for pushers, those who sell drugs to others. I am sure that the whole House is united in its detestation of the Mafia type of pusher who blossoms in detective stories and films, but the sad fact is that the person who pushes harmful drugs to children of 14, the person we want to condemn out of hand, is usually a child of 15, and that the retail side of the distribution of drugs is largely in the hands of those whom we would regard as more sinned against than sinning. I would wish to see the penalties for those who are manufacturing or importing large quantities of drugs substantially increased, but the child pusher cannot be dealt with in this way.
I was taken by the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that while we come down heavily on the individual who sells a small

amount of drugs to a friend or neighbour, we have no special penalty for those in the van of spreading propaganda in favour of the drug culture. I have in the past been in favour of exemplary sentences and fines for film stars and pop stars who are apprehended. The fact that it is known that a famous pop star or film star is on drugs has a bad effect on impressionable adolescents, and there is a case for imposing substantial penalties on this small group. My feeling that those in public life should be given exemplary sentences if they break the drugs law is slightly blunted when I look through Schedule 2, Part II, Class B, and find that, quite unwittingly, on my dentist's instructions, while engaged on the business of the House of Commons, I exported a scheduled drug for my own use to ease a toothache and then imported it back into this country, without realising that I was infringing the law. As more and more complicated drugs come into use, the number of people who unwittingly infringe the law will grow.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in hoping that substantially more money will be spent on research in the near future. We know that the amount of money which has been spent on research in the past, amounting to some £5,000 or £10,000 a year by no means presents the full picture, but we are faced with a potentially disastrous situation.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that there were many reasons why we should not follow the American drug scene completely in that our situation is not likely to get as bad as the situation in the United States at the moment. However, we can still miss the disastrous American experience by a very wide margin and have room for calamity in this country. It is a fact that the principal cause of death amongst adolescents in New York City at present is addiction to heroin. The situation here could get very much worse and still be a long way from that appalling situation.
There is, of course, room for much more knowledge and research on this subject. In my constituency we have in the Royal Bethlem Hospital one of the best drug centres in the country, where excellent treatment is administered and


first-class research is carried out. But some of the value of that research is lost because when patients leave the hospital there is little idea whether they immediately go back on to drugs. The reason is that there are not enough trained social workers to keep in touch with them and to follow up their histories. Patients who go into the clinic often are disordered personalities even before they take drugs. A deficient personality is not necessarily cured during drug treatment. Once patients go out of the influence of the clinic it is difficult to keep in touch with them. Therefore, it is not known whether the treatment has had any lasting value. There is obviously room for much more of a follow-up in research. There is certainly room for more research on the clinical side and in educational matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford pleaded for integrated education on drugs in the normal school curriculum. This might be a recipe for total disaster because if the education is badly carried out it may advertise a form of behaviour which nobody wants to see carried on. I made some rather critical comments about education in drug use during the Committee stage of the previous Bill. One letter which I received came from a widow of a former chief of the fire service in one of the great cities of this country. She told me that her late husband had been plagued by an outbreak of false alarms caused by children. The fire service and the education authorities arranged for a number of lectures to schools to put over how wicked and dangerous it was to set off false fire alarms. I need hardly say that the number of false alarms shot up to quite incredible proportions but dropped immediately the lectures stopped. We need far more research into the whole subject of deterrent education.
I welcome the Bill as it stands. It would have been better if we had waited until after the summer, particularly since conversations are to take place with the General Medical Council on the responsibilities of the medical profession. I should have liked to see the Home Office thinking about the matter during the summer before presenting the House with a Bill, but on balance I believe that the Bill will considerably improve the situation. We have much to learn, but our

discussions on the Bill should teach us a great deal.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Having listened to all the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is obvious to me that this is a debate on a subject in which we find a great deal of agreement. Hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern about the number of young people involved in the taking of drugs.
The reason why I wish to take a brief part in the debate is that I have served as chairman of a children's committee with special responsibilities for the administration of a boys' remand home and now serve on the board of a senior boys' detention centre, and I have long been appalled at the number of youngsters taken into custody as a result either of drug offences or of other offences while under the influence of drugs. Anything that can be done to lessen the problem is to be welcomed.
No one who has taken part in this debate can have any idea of the number of people taking drugs. There have been many different reports on the subject. I have read that, while there are some 3,000 registered addicts in the country, the number on hard drugs may be in the region of 35,000 and there are some 200,000 people on other forms of drugs. That is some indication of the problem that we face.
As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, it is to be hoped that we shall at least start on the research which is so badly needed. Many people are quite unaware of the dangers resulting from taking drugs. I have often sat in juvenile courts and realised that youngsters appearing before the court and their parents are completely unaware of the dangers that they face. Obviously, we must concentrate on the education and research aspects of the Bill.
Often there is a great reluctance on the part of parents to acknowledge that their children may be involved in some form of drug taking, and it is not until it is too late that they become conscious that something is wrong and try to put it right. It is often the case, too, that in areas where there are drug problems there is a reluctance on the part of


authority to admit it and to try to solve it.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill dealing with research. There is a reference to the sum of £10,000, and it is said that it is not expected to be more than £10,000 in the first year or two. I hope that the Government will not be rigid about the figure.
When it comes to education, we have to try to involve all the respective organisations in which young people are concerned, and my comments are directed principally at young people. Education authorities can play a valuable rôle, as can the youth organisations. I hope that it will be possible to get them together with a view to discussing the problem with them and seeking to point out the dangers that can arise from the consequences of drug taking. I should like to think, too, that the same could be done in our schools.
Clauses 12 and 13 relate to the over-prescription of drugs. However, it should be pointed out that only a very small percentage of the medical profession is involved. We should take whatever measures are necessary to try to put a stop to it. I should like to see this dealt with by the medical profession rather than by the reliance on prosecution.
Clause 25 relates to the new punishments. There has been an increase in the maximum penalty from 10 years to 14 years. I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with those who feel that anyone caught trafficking in drugs should be severely punished. But I wonder whether the increased sentence will be a deterrent to many. Only time will tell. I should like to see more drug traffickers caught.
This brings me to the attitude of the police towards the proposals in the Bill. The Metropolitan area is, unfortunately, short of police. I believe that this problem calls for police officers specially trained in drug investigation. I hope that we shall have the closest contact and co-operation with the police.
I have mentioned the increased penalties in the Bill. I have often been appalled at what I should term the relatively lenient sentences imposed by the courts. Without wishing to criticise magistrates as such, I think that it is

farcical, when heavy penalties are laid down in statutes for serious offences like trafficking in drugs, to impose quite lenient sentences. Such sentences do not deter people. Therefore, I hope that the courts will take note of what has been said today. I hope that they will also take note of the increased penalties set out in the Bill.
It has rightly been pointed out that there must be a clear distinction between those who traffick in drugs and those who take or are in possession of them. This point is relevant. We should extend some degree of sympathy to many of those who unfortunately take drugs. I feel a certain degree of sympathy for such people. Earlier this week I visited Wandsworth Prison. It was pointed out to me that often people convicted of taking drugs are sent there who are not only a problem to themselves but also to the prison. I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that more enlightenment should be given to magistrates before they sentence people charged with having taken drugs.
I welcome the Bill because it will enable us to tackle some of the abuses that hon. Members on both sides are fully aware have been taking place. I should like to stress that we are dealing with people—often very young people—who need help, not punishment. Therefore, I hope that we shall concentrate on research into the problem of drug taking. As I said, there can often be a degree of sympathy for young people who take drugs, and we all know the tragic consequences that drug taking can lead to from what we read in the national Press. This is why I fully support the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This debate has been graced by the delivery of five maiden speeches, and I regard myself privileged indeed to have heard them. They were delivered with great fervour, and each showed ability and sparkle, and I am sure that the House looks forward to further contributions from each and every one of those Members.
I am glad that the Government have been so gracious as to adopt the Bill in toto. It means that the Front Bench on this side has no need, and indeed


would in any event find it impossible, to make any substantial objections to the content of the Bill. If there is any truth whatsoever in the allegation that the Government came to power rather unexpectedly by a freak of fortune and found themselves without a fully thought-out programme, clearly a Bill such as this was a godsend. It was tailor-made to till such a gap.
In any event, the Government have paid the previous Administration the highest compliment they possibly could pay. It was the Romans who, when they overran a tribe, from time to time adopted the gods of those people. I do not think that the triumph of the Conservative Party will be so complete, but it is, nevertheless, a high tribute, and I give the undertaking on behalf of the Opposition that if the Government change before the Bill receives the Royal Assent it will be introduced again in its original form. Whatever rather brassy claims were made by the law-and-order brigade opposite about sweeping changes which might be necessary in the criminal law, it is obvious that with regard to the law on the misuse of drugs we on this side managed to get this right to the last syllable.
Although the Bill is largely a consolidating Measure, it is inevitable that certain substantial changes should be made. As the Home Secretary rightly said, the current law is fragmentary, inadequate and inflexible. It is fragmentary because much of the legislation consists of ad hoc Measures, and there has not been a dovetailing into a comprehensive pattern. In considering the powers which are available one has to sniff like a truffle hound from the Poisons Act, 1933, to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, to the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1965 and 1967. The law is inadequate because in each of those Acts there are massive lacunae. The Poisons Act covers possession only. The 1965 Dangerous Drugs Act allows total prohibition of the supply of opium, but not other substances, such as heroin. The 1967 Act provides only for the control of over-subscribing and notification of addicts with regard to a limited range of drugs.
As we have heard, the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1965 and 1967 dealt only with drugs which had been listed by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic

Drugs of 1961, and it meant that if international authorities decided to schedule a drug under that Convention, under Section 12 of the 1965 Act Her Majesty's Government were obliged to incorporate that into United Kingdom law. It meant that all the authorities which were entitled to use that drug automatically had their authority extended, quite irrespective of whether there was the slightest necessity for them to use it.
The battle against drugs is a swiftly moving affair, and it therefore demands powers of quick reaction. It is exactly such powers that this Measure provides. The drug scene can change so rapidly as to make it necessary for a Home Secretary—if he is to save the situation from getting out of hand—to be able to act within a matter of weeks rather than months or years.
As others have pointed out, Clause 2, with its tripartite division of drugs, enables such swift changes of classification to be made. But it achieves more. It enables the threat, or potential threat, of any scheduled drug at any given time to be categorised. In its report on L.S.D. the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence said, in paragraph 7:
… we recognise certain differences between particular drugs which make it desirable that they should not all be dealt with in the same way. In the first place there is a hierarchy of danger, and we think it important, both for the guidance of the courts and for the education of the public, that this should be taken into account in the relevant statutes.
There are no established guidelines for classifying drugs according to their harmfulness, but any measure of a threat which a drug poses to the public involves judgment of its toxic effect, the prevalance or potential of misuse, and the danger to society from anti-social behaviour in relation to that drug.
I bear very much in mind the words of the Home Secretary when he reminded us that we were here dealing with an issue of human freedom—the question of a person's choice in relation to his consumption pattern. I believe that there are three types of challenge to which the new law will have to react. First, there is the pharmacologically potent drug, with a high risk to the user; secondly, there is the less potent drug, the misuse of which, if sufficiently widespread or endemic, may complicate drug


misuse and produce other social problems; and, thirdly, there is what might be called the spree drugs, misuse of which will ebb and flow like an epidemic.
In the case of the first category the law must follow the pharmacology, but with the second and third categories the pharmacology may be subsidiary to the social situation at any given time. When an identical Bill was first published four months ago it was popularly referred to in the Press as a Bill which provided for harsher measures against traffickers, and tonight the Home Secretary gave that aspect pride of place in describing in general terms the contents of the Bill.
Although it is only one of the score of objectives that this legislation seeks to achieve, it is right that public opinion should regard this as a dominant theme, for the area of the pusher is the very area in which criminal sanctions can have their greatest effect. The weak, the inadequate, the dispirited—those who must place themselves outside the mores of society, those who have a lust for selfinjury—their cure does not lie in the threat of criminal punishment. Their therapy is a compassionate reintroduction into society.
But there are those whose acumen makes this traffic possible—as was said very clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve)—those who invest in the misery of their fellow humans. It is right and necessary that they should be exposed to the full harshness of the criminal law.
So many points have been made in the debate which will doubtless be repeated in Committee that it is not proper to refer to them at this stage, but I should make reference to a theme that has been recurring in the debate, as it did in the earlier debate on 26th March and the sixth session of the Committee that we had. That is the feeling of many hon. Members that the Bill revels in negative prohibitions and contains few positive steps to combat the problems of drugs. It is unnecessary to refer specifically to health education in the Bill. There is no need for special sanction for any money to be spent in that respect.
But the case goes further than that, maintaining that there should be reference here to positive measures in formal

education. It is a fundamental question how well equipped our community is for such official action. The problems of using formal education as a weapon against drugs misuse are as complex as using the law to the same end. As the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) reminded us, we are singularly ill-prepared to educate the community about the misuse of drugs.
A major inquiry into the question of public attitudes towards drugs is being conducted at the moment by the Department of Social Services, at the request of the Government. I understand that this survey will soon produce a report; perhaps the Minister of State can give us some information on that. Such a study should be invaluable to us in deciding what is effective drug education and what is not. To rush into this without such a reconnaissance might lead to more dangers than we removed.
Clause 8 has been drafted to save a multitude of lengthy arguments in the courts. It reiterates the principle which appeared in the High Court decision in Sweet v. Parsley in January 1969. That principle, briefly, is that guilty knowledge should always be a necessary ingredient in a drugs offence involving the occupier of premises. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) undertook that there would be a review of the law in relation to absolute offences very soon after the case of Warner v. the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in 1968.
Second, the Clause avoids a pitfall which exists on treatment in Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965. That provision refers to premises being used
for the purpose of smoking cannabis".
As Lord Reid and others in Sweet v. Parsley pointed out, it involves a stretching of language to say that when a person lights a cannabis cigarette in a room with the knowledge of the occupier, that room is used for the purpose of cannabis smoking.
I welcome the fact that Clause 8 has found a wholesome formula for defining the offence by reference not to the premises but to the person himself,
… who knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on the premises …


The clear statement that guilty knowledge is a condition precedent to conviction is a great safeguard against injustice. But it can be a road for the acquittal of the guilty.
I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether it is possible to draw a distinction between the occupiers of public premises where these prohibited activities take place and the occupiers of private premises in the same circumstances. It may well be that, after the police have gone to a café or a restaurant which is known to be frequented by such people, the floor littered, perhaps, with dozens of half-smoked reefers, the prosecution will still be unable to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the occupier had the guilty knowledge which is necessary under Clause 8.
Is there not a case, therefore, for having a different test for public premises? Is it not in the public interest that there should be a test whereby, once it has been shown that the activity has taken place on the premises, there is a presumption that it took place with the knowledge of the occupier? But that would lead to the creation of an absolute offence, which could be damnably unfair in many circumstances. Attached to that presumption, therefore, there could be the defence, a defence provable on a balance of probability, that the owner did not have that guilty knowledge. Then, as regards private premises, one could resort to the ordinary standard of criminal proof such as appears in Clause 8 now.
To my mind, such a distinction between public and private premises, with a different standard of proof, would achieve a balance between a determination to protect the innocent and, on the other hand, a desire to punish the guilty.
Cannabis has once again reared its ugly head, and that, I believe, for the third time in the House within 14 or 15 months. No doubt, a great deal will be said about it at later stages. At this point, I make three observations. First, I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said. It is clear on the latest market researches that nine out of every 10 young people utterly condemn the use of cannabis. I realise full well what the right hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)

are saying in this connection, that there is a fundamental feeling of incredulity and cynicism among young people towards the older generation and towards the law enforcement authorities on this matter. If they accept those market researches as correct, their case cannot stand. If there is a general condemnation of cannabis among young people, as I believe there to be, just as in all other age groups in society, the cynicism is not as widespread as they make out.
Second, it was put to us forcefully, in an eloquent speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that cannabis had by now passed the point of no return, that we had to accept the inevitable. Every expert who testifies on this subject qualifies his observations by saying that the number of people addicted to cannabis, or who take cannabis with any frequency at all, simply cannot be gauged. Lady Wootton put it fairly and said that it might be anywhere between 30,000 and 300,000. Professor Paton, professor of pharmacology at Oxford, in a publication about 18 months ago, said that it might be about 0·005 per cent. of the population. The right hon. Member for Ashford does not know whether it is tens or hundreds of thousands or a million. How then can my hon. and learned Friend say with any certainty that we have passed any point at this stage?
Third, as to the case with regard to the possible liberalisation of the law on cannabis, if we were starting from scratch, if there had never been any prohibition against cannabis, the onus of proof would be upon those who make out that it is harmful, who say that there may be a causal connection between the taking of cannabis and moving on to hard drugs. But that is not the case. The prohibition, the condemnation, has existed for a very long time. A League of Nations resolution of 1925, which was subscribed to by about two dozen countries, clearly condemned cannabis, and our law has condemned it for a considerable time. The question now is whether we should go back. The onus of proof is upon those who wish to change the law, and with the greatest respect to them all, they have never been able, and are not able with the present state of knowledge, to discharge that heavy onus of proof.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East introduced his Bill on 25th March this year he made it clear that he made no extreme claims on behalf of that Measure. I am glad that no one who has taken part in the excellent debate today has made any such claims. No country has ever succeeded in ridding itself of drug abuse by criminal prohibitions alone. There is more to promoting good health than fighting the bacillus of disease. The Bill is a skeletal structure of restrictions, prohibitions, disciplines and sanctions. Into the dry bones and the cold clay of that structure there must breathe the spirit of compassion and understanding, willingness to learn and eagerness to assist.
By itself, the letter of the criminal law is of very limited power in this connection. Far more does the long-term success or failure of this legislation lie with the social worker, the youth leader, the police officer running a juvenile liaison scheme, the doctor in his surgery, the teacher in his classroom, and above all the conscientious and intelligent parent who is concerned with the conditions in which his children live.
It is my fervent hope that the Bill will be seen by all people, especially young people, not as a magisterial rebuke delivered by an older generation but as a challenge and inspiration to the determination of society to combat one of the most dreadful maladies of modern life.

9.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The debate has throughout been thoughtful and constructive, and that theme was continued by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elysian Morgan). The House will wish to pay tribute to him for the great deal of work he did whilst in office in the preparation of the Bill. We are very glad that he was able to take part in the debate this evening.
The hon. Gentleman asked me one or two specific questions to which perhaps I might refer right at the outset. One was about the report of the Social Survey. I understand that it is now not expected until some time later this year.
The hon. Gentleman also referred specifically to Clause 8. I am sure that

he will not expect me to comment on what he said at this stage, but my right hon. Friend will of course take careful note of his suggestion.
I said in opening that this had been a thoughtful and constructive debate. We were particularly fortunate to have five maiden speeches, every one of which was of outstanding quality. We were also fortunate in having contributions from three members of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, who have done a great deal of work in this field. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I shall refer later to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, but I should like now particularly to endorse his tribute to the work and knowledge of the police in this difficult matter. In many respects, it is a new problem for the police and they are tackling it in a way which is both humane and effective, and I sincerely join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to them.
I was sorry that I was not able to hear the whole of the excellent and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). He brings to the House the experience of a general practitioner who has had to deal with this problem practically, and I am sure that the clearly wide knowledge of medical matters which he brings to the House will be of great value to us in future.
I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), but I had a full report of what he said. As other hon. Members did, he rightly stressed the need for education in this matter. I know that he supported the Bill while having certain reservations about it. I hope that he will be able to take part in our further discussions. With his pleasant manner, he will always be heard with interest by the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) is an eminent lawyer who will bring to the House his legal experience and knowledge, which should be especially useful in our consideration of matters of this kind.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), whose speech I heard in full, spoke of the importance of community and family relationships in dealing with problems of this kind. He put the problem into perspective. His was a thoughtful speech and I look forward to hearing him again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) spoke, as one would expect, with great knowledge and stressed the difficult rôle of the police. I should like to look carefully into his suggestion for regional drug squads. There are difficulties and complications, but I assure him that it is a matter which we shall study carefully.
The Government clearly carefully considered the whole question of whether to introduce the Bill in the form of the original Bill, or to incorporate some of the Amendments suggested in Committee on the original and to take into account events since that time. The arguments on either side were balanced, but I think that we were right to bring forward the Bill for Second Reading at this stage, for that makes it clear that the Government accept the broad principles of the original Bill.
We shall now have the whole of the summer months before the Committee stage starts to consider carefully and at length the Amendments which have been suggested and the debates, both in the House and in Committee. We shall be able to consider the reports of the advisory committees and the bodies outside the official arena, such as the valuable report produced by the Bow Group.
Between now and Committee stage we shall be able to consider all these things. Perhaps the most encouraging development which has taken place in the last day or so is the approach which my right hon. Friend has received from Lord Cohen. I very much hope that as a result of that approach it will be possible for the General Medical Council to take a larger part in the enforcement of the disciplines inside the profession. Everyone would like to see a move in that direction and this was stressed particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. No one pretends that the General Medical Council could do all of the job. That would be impractical, but

the greater the part of the job of enforcement of the disciplines which passes over to it, the better it will be for the profession and the community as a whole.
A number of hon. Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and the hon. Member for South Shields have spoken about the need for another look at the question of treatment and after-care. I have looked at the very valuable report of the Committee on LSD on which the hon. Gentleman served. Some of the recommendations, I am sure he would agree, fall outside the scope of the Bill but they are obviously matters at which we shall want to look carefully.
I can tell the House that good progress has been made in establishing hostels for addicts who have withdrawn from drugs. In addition to several, run and financed entirely by voluntary bodies there are two, Featherstone Lodge at Forest Hill operated by the Community Drug Project at Camberwell and Suffolk House, Iver, Bucks., which receive financial support from local authority sources and are associated with hospitals specialising in the treatment of drug addiction. These hostels have accommodation for over 30 residents. At present the number in residence is only six. It may be that these hostels will prove sufficient for the number of addicts withdrawn from drugs requiring hostel accommodation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I know something of these projects. There is anxiety as to whether our present form of treatment of some of the heroin cases gives sufficient encouragement to people to move out into centres of this sort. We need to look at what is going on in our treatment centres.

Mr. Sharples: I agree. This is one of the matters referred to in the report on LSD and is something with which we are all concerned. There is a particular problem, and this is part of it, over accommodation for the addict who is still receiving drugs as part of his treatment. This is something at present being discussed between the Department of Health and Social Security, the hospital treatment centres and the London Boroughs Association.
Much has been said by hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about research. The Home Office Drugs Branch has compiled a register of research and researchers in the United Kingdom. This includes research done by the Medical Research Council and shows that 105 projects have been or are in progress. What is needed now is perhaps more co-ordination of this effort. This is one of the things at which we shall be looking. Discussions will shortly be held on the question of co-ordination and we shall be announcing future Government policy in due course, as well as the level of expenditure which will be needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred particularly to the question of barbiturates. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, the Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Wayne has started work on this very difficult subject. I do not think anybody would under-estimate the difficulties and complexities of this problem. One great difficulty is the very large number of National Health prescriptions given for barbiturates in the normal course of treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford referred particularly to the number of tablets given on prescription. We will want to consider this matter. The Sub-Committee had its first meeting a month ago, I think, and I cannot say at this stage when it will report, but I doubt, from the information which I have, whether it will report before we start the Committee stage of the Bill. It appreciates the urgency of the problem and will try to get out its report as soon as it can.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Report of the Committee on cannabis which was debated in the House on 27th January, 1969. The House came to the very firm conclusion that the law should be enforced. None of us should be under any illusion about the extent to which the traffic in cannabis could grow unless the law were enforced effectively.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I did not agree with what he said and I did not accept by any means the premise on which he

based his argument. We simply do not know the extent of the problem. I do not believe that the problem here bears any relation to the problem in the United States, particularly in California. I do not accept—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take this in the right way—the defeatist attitude that this battle is lost. It certainly is not lost among the vast majority of young people.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that he can eradicate cannabis smoking?

Mr. Sharples: I believe that we can keep it under control. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan. If we were starting from scratch it might be different, but if we were to take steps to legalise cannabis I believe that it would have grave effects indeed.
I do not think that there has been any dispute in this debate or in the debates which preceded it about the general rightness of the policy of trying to restrict and control the spread of cannabis.

Mr. Paget: I think that probably all of us would say that if we could eradicate tobacco smoking we would be a little better for it. Probably most of us would say that if we could eradicate alcohol we would be better for it. But since we cannot we have to control it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we can eradicate cannabis? Has not the smoking of it gone too far?

Mr. Sharples: I do not accept that it has gone too far. I still believe that it is confined to a small proportion of the population. When I was at Berkeley University, in the United States, I asked one of the members of the faculty the extent of smoking marijuana at the university. I was told that in that university 60 per cent. of the faculty were smoking marijuana. We have reached nothing approaching that level and I am very glad that we have not done so. I shall do all in my power to try to prevent that situation arising.
Where there has been argument, during this debate and outside the House, is not in the main about the rightness of the policy but about the methods of enforcement and the penalties available to the courts. On penalties, which were not discussed in Committee on the previous Bill, it would be helpful if we were to have


the views of hon. Members, on both sides, at some stage. My feeling is that there is not much point in introducing maximum penalties which are never likely to be enforced in the courts. That does not give credence to the law. This is a matter which we shall want to consider at a future stage.
I believe, as other hon. Members have said, that the real problem, particuarly with cannabis and to a lesser extent with other drugs, is to convince the small minority of young people—I accept that it is a small minority—of the logic of the case against the use of drugs of this kind. This is where I parted company strongly with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
I do not believe that the vast majority of young people need convincing, but I do believe that we must recognise that there is a minority who need such convincing. It is here where I accept that we have not yet succeeded as we should have clone. This is a matter which we shall have to look at very carefully indeed in the future.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, have referred to the powers of search and arrest. Since the Bill was published, we now have the Report of the Advisory Committee on Powers of Search and Arrest, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was a member. I am sure that the House will wish to study carefully that report, including the minority report, as we shall ourselves, before reaching an absolutely firm decision on this difficult matter. The arguments both for and against statutory powers of search are clearly set out in the report.
The problem—and this is an argument in favour of those special powers—is the ease with which drugs can be concealed, not only by the person who is concealing them for his own use but, because of their size, by the trafficker as well. That is the real problem. I would not pretend that this is at all an easy matter or that the arguments are all on one side. As my right hon. Friend has said, this is a matter which we shall want to look at carefully before the Bill goes into Committee.
We do not want to exaggerate the problem but, as I have already said, one

of the great difficulties in this whole question is that we simply do not know the size of the problem.
I should like to echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford when he spoke on the Bill originally introduced, when he said that what the law can do to cope with the problem is severely limited:
The law can do only so much. This Bill can do only so much."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1462.]
I entirely agree that the Bill has, perhaps, a certain punitive image which could be misunderstood. Inevitably a Bill to restrict the availability of drugs is bound to have a penal form. We will certainly look at possible and sensible ways of redressing certain provisions in the Bill so as to give stronger impetus to such matters as treatment, rehabilitation, education, publicity, counselling, community effort, research and all the other matters which have been raised in the debate. Perhaps the most important point is to make certain that the terms of reference of the new Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs are right, so that we can stimulate the Departments, the local authorities, the professions, the services and agencies which have a part to play. Whether we can go further than this in the Bill may be doubtful, but what I can assure the House is that we will review the whole field of social and community effort in the light of the suggestions which have been made today and in the light of the reports of the Advisory Committees.
Whatever we may do to the Bill in Committee, whatever changes may be made to the Bill in Committee, I believe that it does represent a major advance. It introduces a new element of flexibility, and in this field, where the climate is changing so frequently, where the problems change so frequently, flexibility is all-important in combating these dangers. It does integrate and in certain respects does reinforce the law, and it is important that the law should be integrated so that people know what the law is and so that the law is set out as clearly as it possibly can be in this most complex field. I believe myself that while there may be criticism in detail of the Bill it has the support of the vast majority of those whose concern with this problem is very real, and I commend the Bill to the House.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for speaking very briefly now, when I have not been able to be present during the whole of the debate and, therefore, may possibly repeat some remarks which may already have been made—though, I think, not by many hon. Members who are at present in the House.
I liked very much the stress on flexibility towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because, as he said, attitudes are changing and conditions are changing. On the whole, I think I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said to the House: I think it is extremely important to separate cannabis from the harder drugs, and I do not accept the familiar "escalation" argument, in itself. In my view, the escalation occurs largely because the same pushers push both cannabis and heroin and are naturally anxious to get their clients on to the more addictive and lucrative drug.
I think also—I repeat the word "think", because I agree that there is need for more research, as well as more treatment of those who are addicted to the harder drugs—I think from what I know, from observing the considerable number of young people who do smoke cannabis from time to time, that it is not addictive. It may be to some extent habit forming, which is not quite the same thing as being addictive. I also believe, on such medical evidence as is available, that it is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine potentially are.
I remember the quite plausible argument advanced in the debate in the previous Parliament by the then right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who has once more left us for the other place, that since we have two socially acceptable drugs, nicotine and alcohol, why should we add a third one? I can understand that argument, but I am not sure that it is completely acceptable or logical. If, as seems to be the case, the users of cannabis do not take, or take very little, strong alcoholic drink, it is perhaps rather less likely that they will die of cirrhosis of the liver. Similarly, with the smoking of cigarettes: the Department of Health and Social Security has spent a lot of public money, quite rightly, in propaganda and advertising

against cigarette-smoking. I think that there is no evidence that cannabis gives anyone cancer of the lung. I do not say that every cigarette-smoker gets that, but there is a proved causal relationship between cigarette-smoking and lung cancer.

Mr. Deedes: Mr. Deedes rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. We have wound up this debate once.

Mr. Deedes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that smoking more than a certain amount of cannabis may cause serious organic damage?

Mr. Driberg: I do not know whether or not that is so, and I carefully used the word "think" rather than "know" a few sentences ago, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I respect the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his speeches in the previous Parliament on this subject, and I do not presume to be dogmatic about this. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, if you think that we should not prolong the debate until ten o'clock, which is the normal time for finishing the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not criticise the hon. Gentleman for prolonging the debate, but usually the debate is wound up by the Front Bench. This procedure is unusual but not irregular.

Mr. Driberg: I was aware of that, since I have been in the House for even longer than you have, with great respect; and I do not intend to prolong the debate for more than a minute of two. [Interruption.] If there were too much interruption of any kind, Mr. Speaker would be justified in reminding us that interventions tend to prolong speeches; so let us be quiet.
A fairly large number of people, mainly young people, use cannabis. The right hon. Member for Ashford may be right about the excessive use of it, but I regard as of the greatest importance the separation of this relatively harmless drug from those which are undoubtedly the most harmful, and killing, drugs, such as heroin.
I should have thought that this was at least an arguable point, but it is not easy to know how, statutorily, one can separate these drugs. I am sure, together with


the research and the treatment that is going on, that the experts who advise the right hon. Gentleman should be addressing their attention to how to separate them. Even if cannabis is kept strictly illegal for a certain transitional period, at least I suggest that attention should be paid to ways and means of separating it from the more harmful drugs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MISUSE OF DRUGS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under or in consequence of the Provisions of that Act.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Paget, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Miss Quennell, Mr. Julian Ridsdale, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. Michael Shaw and Mr. Robert Sheldon be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure in the Public Business of the House; and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business:

Ordered,
That Mr. Austen Albu, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Turton, and Dame Irene Ward be Members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That so much of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of the last Parliament as relates to Scrutiny of Taxation, together with the relevant Appendices, be referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time:

Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts, occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and to report thereon to this House:—
That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members:

Ordered,
That Mr. Humphrey Atkins, Mr. Brian Batsford, Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Robin Cooke, Mr. James A. Dunn. Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Walter Harrison, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. David Lane, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Wellbeloved, and Mr. John Wells be Members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That five be the Quorum:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That two be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report to the Committee from time to time:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:

Ordered,
That any Sub-Committee which may be appointed to deal with the organisation of, and the provision of services in, the Library do have the assistance of the Librarian.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

BUS FARES, FLINTSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that a record number of hon. Members wish to participate in the Adjournment debate. I hope that I shall be able to call a number of them.

9.42 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: This House in its wisdom does not accord to hon. Members the privilege of a second maiden speech. But since I have the opportunity I should like to place on record a tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Nigel Birch, whose wit and wisdom made him such a notable ornament of the House. We are glad that he is still serving the public in another place.
I am grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the mounting discontent in my constituency, and indeed throughout North Wales, at the recent severe increases in the charges of the Crosville Bus Company. I have in my hand a petition signed by no fewer than 500 inhabitants in the town of Prestatyn alone. Crosville is the nationalised and monopoly passenger carrier throughout the whole of North Wales. Ever since 1965 the company has applied for and been granted an annual increase in fares. The last such increase was in January of this year.
Now the pace has quickened, as indeed the pace of inflation has speeded up

throughout the economy in the nine months of the now happily deceased Labour Government. Instead of an annual increase in fares, we have the bus company seeking an increase in fares only six months after the last increase was granted and being awarded the increase by the Traffic Commissioners. On 2nd July the Traffic Commissioners for the North-West Traffic Area granted an application by the Crosville Company in full, subject only to the most derisory of abatements. The company asked that the children's fares should be increased by 50 per cent. of the full fare to 75 per cent. and were told that they could charge only 66 per cent. Apart from that, the application was granted in full.
Most concessional fares have been abolished, and the majority of cheap fares have gone, including all weekly tickets and contract tickets. Return fares are now based on single fares, plus 90 per cent., and single fares are based on a charge of 5d. a mile. The end result seems to be that we in North Wales lose on the swings and on the roundabouts.
Crosville is pretty well a local monopoly over the whole area and therefore is not subject to the local competition which might have served to keep down fares, at any rate on journeys which could be made to yield a profit. But Crosville is not merely a local monopoly. It is part of the National Bus Company, a national monopoly. As such, it is required by law, notably by Section 41 of the 1968 Transport Act, to earn sufficient profit not merely to cover its operating costs but also to cover depreciation and the renewal of assets.
The Company has to provide services on a large number of sparsely populated routes, and it is required to provide a surplus of no less than £800,000 annually. I gather that there is some mystery as to how that figure is arrived at. However that may be, it seems an excessive and an excessively inflexible requirement. That is our loss on the swings.
It might have been supposed that, since Crosville is part of a national monopoly, there would be some approximation to equality of conditions between it and the other companies which form part of that monopoly, and that there would be some system of internal compensation whereby the profit margins fixed for the separate


companies took account of the earnings potential of the regions which they serve.
That is far from being the case. If there is one single journey in my constituency which should be able to be made to operate at a profit, it must be the journey between the two largest centres of population, Rhy1 and Prestatyn, which are only three miles apart. That three-mile journey covers a built-up area, with the possibility of picking up fares on the way. The single fare over that distance is an almost unbelievable 2s., and there is no reduction on the return fare. It is 4s.
Until recently, I have been living in Sunningdale, in Berkshire. The other day, I took a bus run by the nationalised Aldershot and District Company a distance of four miles to Egham, the nearest railway station. The charge for that four miles was 1s. 3d. I confess that I did not ask what the return fare would be. Here, we have a 1s. 3d. charge for a four-mile run in the prosperous South-East and a 2s. charge for the three-mile run in North Wales. That is why I say that in North Wales we lose both on the roundabouts, and on the swings.
A nationalised monopoly means that there is no local competition and no undercutting. It also means that our monopoly is compelled to try to achieve a target which may be attainable elsewhere but certainly is not attainable in relatively sparsely populated areas. I shudder to think what the situation must be in Mid-Wales.
I hope that I have made it clear that what I blame in all of this is the system. But, even within the present highly unsatisfactory system, I am sure that it would be possible to make better arrangements. The last Government issued a White Paper (Cmnd. 3481) in December, 1967. Paragraph 98 of that contains the following passage:
In many cases services to outlying villages can best be provided by private operators, who may well run a bus service in conjunction with other activities; and the service may be best provided with a relatively small vehicle. The Government itself is experimenting on some postal services with the use of minibuses which will at the same time carry a few passengers.
I cannot help feeling that if ideas of this kind had been followed through with more imagination and flexibility, Crosville, and perhaps other companies

similarly placed, would be quit of its loss-making country routes and could afford to keep down fares on other routes. But flexibility and imagination are the last things to look for in a monopoly.
I am sure that the people who run the Crosville Company are overflowing with the milk of human kindness and that there is nothing they desire more than to provide the people of North Wales with a frequent, punctual and cheap form of public transport. The plain fact is that they have not provided a transport system at all, but a sort of brontosaur—a creature which took eight minutes to send a message from its head to its toes—a prehistoric monster doomed to extinction because of its inability to adapt itself to a changing environment; a cumbersome monster, what is more, which inflicts cruelty and suffering not out of malevolence but out of sheer incompetence and clumsiness.
So we get the old and the sick unable to afford the fare to the doctor, to the hospital, to the chemist, or to visit their friends. So we get families unable to afford the bus fare to send their children to school. We get cases such as I have had described in a letter from a constituent—

Mr. Wyn Roberts: rose—

Sir A. Meyer: —of children being put off buses a long way from their destinations, in one case five miles.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, mere standing will not do it. He must ask his hon. Friend whether he may intervene.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Perhaps I may intervene. Does my hon. Friend realise the full impact of these bus fare increases on school children? I refer to the 1944 regulation which requires that a child under eight travelling less than two miles or a child over eight travelling under three miles to school has to be paid for by his parents and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a fully fledged Member of the House now. Interventions must be brief.

Sir A. Meyer: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his illustration of the hardship being caused to families with school children and of the need for measures to take account of that hardship.
I have great confidence in the ability of the present Government to slow the rate of inflation. In the years to come enterprises, whether public or private, will no longer be compelled to put up their prices year after year as they have in recent years. At least, I hope not. But I feel sadly certain that, even in a world of stable prices, Crosville and other such enterprises will be coming back year after year applying to increase fares. This monopoly, like other monopolies, is a chronic dweller on slippery slopes.
The process is familiar and inexorable. It cannot get enough passengers to pay its way, so it raises its charges. The fact of raising charges drives passengers away, so its revenue falls still further. So it raises its charges again and it gets fewer passengers; and so the charges go up again, and on and on, and down and down. The passengers club together. They go by bicycle. They walk. They get together with their workmates to buy a second-hand car. They do anything rather than pay what they regard as the exhorbitant fares of the bus company. So it is doomed to a process of extinction, and there seems no way of stopping it.
We are already a very long way down the slippery slope. Even if there is a change of heart; even if Crosville and other companies are given the courage and the incentive to attempt the opposite policy of reducing fares and offering special concessions such as cheap off-peak fares for the young and the old, of restoring all the concessions which any well-managed enterprise would find it profitable to provide, as I hope they will be, it will still be a very long time before it becomes possible to provide a decent public transport system at a realistic charge.
Until then I fear that it may be necessary to provide subsidised concessions; concessions subsidised out of taxation; concessions subsidised out of the rates. I have a strong prejudice against all forms of subsidy, and it is

only with the greatest reluctance that I shall find myself shortly pressing the Flintshire County Council to subsidise cheap rates for school children and old-age pensioners. It is a very expensive business. I am told by the county council that even to provide concessionary fares for old-age pensioners over 75 will cost £30,000 per annum, and nobody will pretend that merely to provide concessionary fares for the over-75s is anything approaching a satisfactory solution.
I would not mind so much the idea of a subsidy if I saw some prospect of the subsidy being self-terminating; if by subsidising a bus company we could so improve its services that it became self-supporting. I suspect that it is too late for that, but it may not be. It is perhaps worth making the effort, but I do not believe that the long-term operation of putting public transport back on its feet can succeed as long as we continue on the present basis.
I accept that in very sparsely populated areas competition is just not feasible. Let us hive off these routes. Let us follow the suggestions in paragraph 98 of the White Paper. Let us have post buses. Let us have private operators combining the delivery of goods with the carriage of passengers. Let us waive the insurance provision, or whatever it is, to make this possible.
But once we have taken away from Crosville and such companies their most unprofitable routes and left them with routes on which it is possible to earn a profit, let us then expose them to competition along these profitable routes. It must be possible to carry passengers the three miles from Rhyl to Prestatyn and still make a profit at a fare much lower than that now charged.
We know that public transport is a difficult matter and that we in North Wales, or elsewhere, cannot expect to win both on the swings and on the roundabouts, but surely we could have a try at breaking even on one or the other? I believe that if we put the needs of people first and used a bit of imagination and flexibility we might even find that if we provided a decent service at a decent price it could make a modest profit.
I am not asking my hon. Friend to give me an answer tonight. This is


clearly a matter about which he will have to think. What I beg of him is to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Let them put their fresh and excellent minds to this matter and in the course of time come up with a much better solution than that which we have now.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) for raising this issue of bus fares with such alacrity, and I congratulate him on his appointment as P.P.S. to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's strictures on this nationalised bus company. After all, the recently announced increase in the price of petrol will, I suppose, make it even more difficult for companies which run buses to keep fares down. In my constituency, which is the neighbouring one to that of the hon. Gentleman, it is obvious that feelings are running very high indeed. I have had shoals of protests. I know that 200 parents in Connahs Quay, a township in my division, have signed a petition of protest, and the general opinion is that the Traffic Commissioners have perpetrated a shocking decision. They are penalising a hard-working community and, in effect, undermining the living standards of young families and aged persons. We feel that it is monstrous, unjust, unreasonable and even downright Draconian to burden my constituents with such increases.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Mr. Jones: It would help me to put my point if I read a brief letter from a constituent which would shed light on the dilemma that many people face in Flintshire, where bus fares have been raised. My constituent writes:
Dear Sir, I am writing to ask you if you could please assist me with the bus fare for my three children who go to the Roman Catholic School in Shotton …

She gives the names of the children, one of whom was born in 1961, another in 1962 and the third in 1964. She says:
They have been going on the school bus till now but the bus company have raised the fares from 6d. each way to 10d. each way for the youngest two, to 1s. 3d. each way for the elder child who goes to the top school, making 14s. 2d. a week increase, which I cannot afford. It will make it £1 9s. 2d. altogether, plus dinner money of £1 6s. 3d. From tomorrow they will have to walk in the mornings and as this is such a long way they will have to leave the house at 8.15 a.m. I cannot take them because I have two younger children at home, one of three years and one of eight months. I do not like to beg, but if you are unable to help me I am afraid they will be having days off school during bad weather and I will keep them at home rather than change their school.
That sad letter is an instance of the effect that this rise in bus fares is having on people in East Flintshire.
A letter from a parent in my own village of Hawarden reads,
With reference to the recent increase in Crosville bus fares I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my daughter, a pupil at Deeside High School, is now obliged to pay 2s. 10d. daily. As I feel this is an unreasonable amount to pay I would be grateful if anything could be done to relieve this situation.
There are many other instances of letters of protest, all of which make a case for saying that these fare rises are far too great. Although I have the documentation here I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and I therefore draw my remarks to a close.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene shortly in this debate, which raises a matter of great importance to all the inhabitants of North Wales, particularly in the rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), whom I am delighted to welcome back to the House as my political neighbour, for raising this matter, and I associate myself entirely with what he has said.
My constituency of Denbigh, which covers an area of nearly 600 sq. miles is probably affected more than any other area in North Wales by these extremely severe fare increases, which fall very heavily upon old-age pensioners and parents of school children whose fares are not paid by the local authorities. In the


Denbigh division we are particularly hard hit because we were denuded of practically all our railways under the Beeching Plan about six years ago.
My hon. Friend said that he shuddered to think of the conditions in Mid-Wales. He need not penetrate that far into Wales to see the effect of these increases. In view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak I shall raise only one point. During the recent General Election campaign I was handed a letter from the Traffic Manager of Crosville Motor Services to a constituent of mine, living at Henllan, near Denbigh, which stated that, in so far as old-age pensioners were concerned, the company was ready to enter into schemes with local authorities. I should like to know from my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, whether any such schemes have been entered into, and to be given any relevant information on that point.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I regretted very much the increases granted by the Traffic Commissioners in East Flintshire, because they created a precedent for the Crosville Bus Company asking for increases in North Staffordshire. The present system of control is totally inadequate. I have been disappointed with the replies from the Government on the questtion of bus fares. Like other hon. Members, I had been misled into believing that there would be rather more stringent control on nationalised industry prices. I should have thought that, on coming to office, the Government would have looked very carefully at the problem of increasing bus fares, made worse by the increase in petrol prices. But this has just not happened.
Many hon. Members have asked that the increases be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. Many are concerned with the situation in their divisions. But the answer always is that this is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners. Yesterday, I appealed before the Commissioners against increases demanded by the Crosville. I have been told that the Commissioners are independent and that the Government have no control over them. I was told that the Commissioners were not even taking into account the demand by the National Bus Company for that

rate of return from Crosville which has been mentioned. It appeared that the Commissioners were acting as a law unto themselves, taking only the necessity for the bus companies to earn what in their opinion was a reasonable rate of profit—whether 5½, 6 or 6½ per cent.
This is something which the Government must look at very closely. Either they must abandon the pretence to be controlling prices in the nationalised sector or they must do something about rising bus fares. It is intolerable for the Government to tell us that they will restrict price increases and refuse to refer this increase to the Prices and Incomes Board or to take direct action themselves. It is totally unacceptable to us to leave it, as it is left at present, to the Traffic Commissioners.

Sir A. Meyer: When the party opposite were in power, these increases in Crosville bus fares were awarded annually.

Mr. Golding: When I appeared before the Commissioners yesterday, I was appealing against two increases this year, one ow which was for an increase of 25 per cent., which the bus company was justifying, and which the Government have refused to intervene on.
The situation is getting worse. This is the situation that I hope the Government will face. It is sheer hypocrisy for them to be talking in terms of price control and keeping down the cost of living and at the same time indulging in their present masterly inactivity on the issue of bus fares.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am grateful for this second opportunity to enter the debate. I wish to make the point as strongly as I can that these bus fare increases are tempting parents to fail to comply with the law governing the sending of their children to school. I refer to the requirement dating from the 1944 Act that a child under eight is not required to walk more than two miles to school, or a child over that age more than three miles. In practice, this has come to mean that transport within those distances has to be paid for by the parents, and, such is the cost of transport now for certain parents in my constituency—as much as 14s. 2d. per week


per child—that it is becoming prohibitive and is tempting them to keep their children away from school.
I submit that the two-mile and three-mile limits in those rules are anachronistic in the present context and, in today's circumstances, they should at least be reviewed, if not abolished, so that transport to and from school is free, particularly for children in rural areas.

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): It would be an impertinence for me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on a maiden speech. It is obvious that the skills for which he was reputed when last a Member have in no way deserted him in the period he has been absent from the House, and we are delighted to see him back.
I am sure that my hon. Friend and all other lion. Members who have spoken will understand that I am not able to follow them in the detailed examination and discussion of this increase tonight. The reason is that the independent Traffic Commissioners have only recently decided the case, and it may yet be the subject of appeal to the Minister. I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) did not fully appreciate that. There is a right of appeal to the Minister for local authorities and transport operators in the area, and the date on which the time for appeal runs out is 19th July. The matter may yet, therefore, come before my right hon. Friend.
If there were an appeal, the Minister would have to decide it in a quasi-judicial capacity. He would appoint an independent inspector to hold an inquiry and to report to him, and he would then decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence which the Commissioners had already heard and the submissions subsequently made to his inspector. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to go further in discussing the merits and implications of this case than I have gone in merely stating the legal position in which my Ministry finds itself. Perhaps it may, however, as a matter of factual record, help if I put some of the points in a wider national context. I very much hope that we may on a later occasion

have an opportunity to discuss this problem of the provision of bus services throughout the country.
The Crossville application was intended to raise the gross revenue of the company by 15 per cent., with varying effect on the individual fares depending on the scales then introduced. This was granted by the Traffic Commissioners, after examination, with only the amendment mentioned by my hon. Friend, that the children's fare was increased from half the adult rate to two-thirds, as opposed to the three-quarters originally requested.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disturbing upward trend in bus fares generally. The main reason which bus operators have currently been giving for the fare increases which they have been seeking throughout the country has been the considerable additional costs which have come from substantial wage increases negotiated earlier this year. This is a labour-intensive industry, and labour costs account for about 70 per cent. of the operating costs of bus operators. Therefore, the opportunity for more productivity is limited. There is a certain amount of scope in one-man operation, which is one of the most promising fields. I am sure that both sides of the industry will do everything in their own interests to pursue this avenue with the vigour at their command, together with any other measures they find that will help to meet the problem of manpower shortages.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if his Government had not at the beginning of last week with such alacrity killed off the Welsh Rural Development Board in the areas within the boundaries of that Board, applications could have been made for subsidies to support these bus services in exactly the same way as applications have been made within the area of the Rural Development Board in the Pennines?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall come to this point in a moment.
My hon. Friend rightly said, and all hon. Members who have spoken have stressed, that the increases bear particularly hard on the elederly in the areas affected, and he asked about the prospect of concessions for them. I do not see how bus operators can reasonably be


expected to provide such concessions out of their own revenue in present circumstances. To give the concessions would entail making the fares still higher for other members of the travelling public.

Sir A. Meyer: That may very well be so, but the point I was trying to make is that such concessionary fares might have the effect of attracting custom back to the bus services and might in the end not reduce their revenue but positively increase it.

Mr. Heseltine: I am coming on to this argument and to speak of the opportunities that exist. There are wide powers now available to all local authorities to arrange such concessions on any bus operator's services in their area. This has been traditionally available for many years for municipal bus undertakings, but under the 1968 Transport Act this concessionary power was made available throughout the general provision of bus undertakings.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I was deliberately referring not to the grants payable by local authorities but to grants payable by the Rural Development Board. For many poor local authorities in Wales the payment of a 50 per cent. grant would be too heavy an impost on their finances.

Mr. Heseltine: The matter does not stop with the payment of a 50 per cent. rural bus grant, because the balance of the 50 per cent. which is expected to be paid by the local authority is grant-aided. Therefore, there is a substantial additional benefit available. There are these opportunities for local councils, if they wish, to apply for local subsidies for various services which they suggest to the undertakings in the area, but it is for the local authorities to take the initiative.
The powers granted in 1968 have been little used by local authorities. The subsidies were available, and the grant aid is available on top of the subsidies. Therefore, it is perhaps surprising that local authorities have not made more use of them. It is for the hon. Members who have raised the point to take it up with the local authorities in the first place, to name the rural bus services they think could be the subject of grant aid,

and see whether they can persuade the local authority to put it forward.
On a national basis, subsidies are already going to the bus industry at large. There is the fuel tax rebate, worth about £21 million a year, £5½ million provided through the 25 per cent. grant for the purchase of new vehicles, and an additional grant on capital projects, such as bus stations, of 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., amounting last year to £368,000. All these measures of financial help are already available from the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the bus licensing system, and suggested that the monopoly position by which the large operators are protected should be reviewed. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) on 9th July that he will examine the working of the licensing system. Within that examination, we will also want to deal with the experiments in mini buses and so on which have now been going on for some time and which we will take into account in whatever we decide.
But it is only fair to say that it is not as simple just to say that we will abolish the licensing system or dramatically amend it. There is not the slightest doubt that the whole subject requires a careful approach. It is the regular operators whom the licensing system deliberately protects. It was designed in the 1930s to protect regular and substantial operators and to protect networks of existing services, both profitable and unprofitable. If it is modified, or abolished, the profitable routes may be better served, but there would be a possibility that the unprofitable routes would suffer in a way which was unacceptable. It may be true that, as a result of smaller overheads for operators on the profitable routes, something could be done about fares on those routes, but one must not lose sight of the consequences which could result for the unprofitable routes, which might lose their services.
As my right hon. Friend has already announced, we will look at the whole of this problem to see what degree of flexibility may be introduced, but everybody understands that the provision of public


transport is causing dilemmas which have not been found easy to solve, and I do not believe that there are easy solutions. We shall give the subject the best examination we can. This has been a valuable debate in stirring our determination to

achieve the results of which we are capable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.